-X^C^-^X^Bf^. 


y.SdNRLF 


*B   Eflfl   s^cf 


AOKI 


■to.  Lib. 


DOCUMENTS 

DEPT. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/foodlawsOOmichrich 


I 


^N^  Befke'sy.  Ca(, 


THE 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS 


OF   THE 


STATE  OF  MICHIGAN 


WITH 


SUPREME  COURT  DECISIONS 


RELATING  THERETO 


APRIL    1,    1905 


COMPILED  AT  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE 

DAIRY  AND  FOOD  DEPARTMENT- 


LANSING,  MICHIGAN 
WYNKOOP  HALLENBECK  CRAWFORD  CO..  STATE  PRINTERS 

1905 


.9 


DOCUMENTS 
DEPT. 


■bill  lib. 

Dept 


/■\or/c,  0(s^ 


-  . .     .  * 

•     *     •    ?    'i   J 


^4 


LAWS  OF  MICHIGAN 

RELATIVE  TO  INSPECTION  AND  ADULTERATION  OF  FOODS 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  COMMISSIONER 

AN  ACT  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  a  Dairy  and  Food  Com- 
missioner, and  to  define  his  powers  and  duties  and  fix  his  compen- 
sation. 

(Act  No.  211,  Public  Acts,  1893.) 

1.  (C.  L.,  4973)  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State 
of  Michigan  enact,  That  within  thirty  days  after  this  act 
shall  take  effect,  the  Governor,  by  and  with  the  consent  of 
the  Senate,  shall  appoint  a  suitable  person  to  be  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner,  which  office  is  hereby  created^ 
and  which  commissioner  so  appointed  shall  hold  his  office- 
until  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  ninety-five,  and  until  his  successor  is  appointed  and 
qualified.  At  the  next  regular  session  of  the  legislature 
and  every  two  years  thereafter,  the  Governor,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint  a  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner,  who  shall  hold  his  office  for  the 
term  of  two  years  from  the  first  day  of  January  in  the  year 
of  his  appointment  and  until  his  successor  is  appointed 
and  qualified. 

2.  (C.  L.,  4974)  Sec.  2.  The  Governor  shall  have 
power  to  remove  such  commissioner  at  any  time  in  his 
discretion;  but  the  reasons  for  such  removal  shall  be  laid 
before  the  Senate  at  the  next  regular  or  special  session  of 
the  legislature  thereafter,  and  in  case  of  a  vacancy  in  the 

385899 


^_,    STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


office  of  commissioner  from  any  cause,  the  Governor  may. 
appoint  another  person  to  fill  the  same. 

3.  (C.  L.,  4975)  Sec.  3.  Before  entering  upon  the 
duties  of  his  office,  the  person  so  appointed  shall  make, 
subscribe,  and  file  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
an  oath  of  office  in  the  form  prescribed  by  section  one  of 
article  eighteen  of  the  constitution  of  this  State,  and  shall 
enter  into  bonds  with  the  people  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
in  the  sum  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  with  sureties  to  be  ap- 
proved by  the  Governor,  conditioned  for  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  his  duties. 

4.  (C.  L.,  4976)  Sec.  4.  Said  commissioner  shall  re- 
ceive an  annual  salary  of  two  thousand  dollars.  The  said 
commissioner  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered,  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Governor,  to  ap- 
point a  deputy  commissioner.  The  salary  of  the  dep\ity 
commissioner  shall  be  fifteen  hundred  dollars  per  annum. 
The  said  commissioner  may  also  appoint  eight  regular 
inspectors,  who  shall  receive  an  annual  salary  not  to  ex- 
ceed one  thousand  dollars  per  year,  and  such  other  special 
inspectors  as  the  proper  performance  of  the  duties  of  the 
office  may  require,  which  special  inspectors  shall  be  paid 
not  to  exceed  three  dollars  per  day  for  time  actually  em- 
ployed: Provided,  That-  the  amount  paid  such  special 
inspectors  any  one  fiscal  year  shall  not  exceed  six  thou- 
sand dollars.  The  persons  so  appointed  shall  have  po\yer 
to  administer  oaths  in  all  matters  relative  to  the  dairy 
and  food  laws  and  shall  take  and  subscribe  the  constitu- 
tional oath  of  office  and  file  the  same  in  the  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State;  and  they  shall  hold  office  during  the 
pleasure  of  the  commissioner.  The  inspectors  shall  have 
the  same  right  of  access  to  the  places  to  be  inspected  as 
the  said  commissioner  or  his  deputy.  The  commissioner 
shall  appoint  such  clerks  as  he  may  deem  necessary  for 
the  transaction  of  the  business  of  his  office.  The  salaries 
and  expenses  authorized  by  this  section  shall  be  for  the 
unexpired  part  of  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirty,  nine- 
teen hundred  five,  and  each  fiscal  year  thereafter.  Said  sal- 
aries are  to  be  paid  monthly  on  the  warrant  of  the  Auditor 
General.     The  actual  and  necessary  expenses  of  the  com- 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS. 


missioner,  deputy  and  inspectors,  in  the  performance  of 
their  •official  duties,  shall  be  audited  by  the  State  Board 
of  Auditors  and  paid  upon  the  warrant  of  the  Auditor 
General.  Such  compensation  and  expenses  shall  be  cer- 
tified, audited  and  paid  in  the  same  manner  as  salaries  and 
expenses  paid  similar  officers.  The  deputy  commission- 
er and  inspectors  shall  enter  into  bonds  with  the  people 
of  the  State  of  Michigan  in  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dol- 
lars each,  with  sureties  to  be  approved  by  the  commis- 
sioner, conditioned  for  the  faithful  performance  of  their 
respective  duties.  The  Board  of  State  Auditors  shall  pro- 
vide office  room,  and  the  necessary  furniture  and  fix- 
tures and  the  necessary  stationery,  supplies  and  printing 
for  the  conducting  of  the  business  of  said  commissioner, 
on  his  application  to  said  board  therefor.  Said  office  shall 
be  and  remain  in  the  city  of  Lansing.  ^ 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  245,  P.  A.  1895.  Am.  by  Act  No.  154,  P.  A.  1897. 
Am.  by  Act  No.  186,  P.  A.  1901.  Am.  by  Act  No.  230,  P.  A.  1903. 
Am.  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

5.  (C.  L.,  4977)  Sec.  5.  The  commissioner,  by  and 
with  the  consent  of  the  Governor,  shall  appoint  a  suitable 
and  competent  person  as  State  analyst,  who  shall  be  a 
practical  analytical  chemist.  The  commissioner,  in  like 
manner,  may  appoint  an  assistant  chemist.  Before  en- 
tering upon  the  duties  of  their  offices,  the  analyst  and 
assistant  chemist  shall  take,  subscribe  and  file  in  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  the  constitutional  oath  of  office. 
Their  term  of  office  shall  continue  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  commissioner.  The  Board  of  State  Auditors  shall 
provide  a  room  in  connection  with  the  Dairy^  and  Food 
Commissioner  for  the  laboratory  of  the  State  analyst  and 
his  assistant,  and  the  necessary  furniture  and  fixtures  there- 
for. In  case  of  the  absence  or  inability  of  the  State  an- 
alyst or  his  assistant  to  perform  his  duty,  the  commission- 
er may  appoint  some  competent  person  to  perform  the 
same  temporarily,  which  person  shall  take,  subscribe  and 
file  the  constitutional  oath  of  office.  The  salaries  and 
expenses  authorized  by  this  section  shall  be  for  the  un- 
expired  part    of  the   fiscal  year  ending  June  thirty,  nine- 


STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


teen  hundred  five,  and  each  fiscal  year  thereafter,  said 
salaries  to  be  payable  monthly  on  the  warrant  of  the  Aud- 
itor General.  The  salary  of  the  chemist  shall  be  not  to 
exceed  two  thousand  dollars;  the  salary  of  the  assistant 
chemist  shall  be  not  to  exceed  twelve  hundred  dollars. 
The  actual  and  necessary  expenses  of  the  chemist  and  the 
assistant  chemist,  in  the  performance  of  their  official  du- 
ties, shall  be  audited  by  the  Board  of  State  Auditors,  and 
paid  upon  the  warrant  of  the  Auditor  General.  Such  an 
amount  as  is  found  to  be  necessary  in  the  proper  perform- 
ance of  the  work  of  the  analyst  may  be  expended  for  chem- 
ical supplies.  Such  compensations,  expenses  and  supplies 
shall  be  certified,  audited  and  paid  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  salaries,  expenses  and  supplies  of  similar  officers. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  245.  P.  A.  1895.  Am.  bv  Act  No.  154,  P.  A.  1897. 
^m.  by  Act  No.  186,  P.  A.  1901.  Am.  bv  Act  No.  230,  P.  A.  1903. 
Am.  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

6.  (C.  L.,  4978)  Sec.  6.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  to  carefully  inquire  into 
the  dairy  and  food  and  drink  products  and  the  several 
articles  which  are  foods  or  drinks,  or  the  necessary  con- 
stituents of  foods  or  drinks,  which  are  manufactured  or 
sold  or  exposed  or  offered  for  sale  in  this  State,  and  he  may, 
in  a  lawful  manner,  procure  samples  of  the  same  and  direct 
the  State  analyst  to  make  due  and  careful  examination 
of  the  same,  and  report  to  the  commissioner  the  result 
of  the  analysis  of  all  and  any  of  such  food  and  drink  pro- 
ducts or  dairy  products  as  are  adulterated,  impure  or  un- 
wholesome in  contravention  of  the  laws  of  this  State;  and 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  commissioner  to  make  a  com- 
plaint against  the  manufacturer  or  vendor  thereof  in  the 
proper  county  and  furnish  all  evidence  thereof,  to  obtain 
a  conviction  of  the  offense  charged.  The  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner,  or  his  deputy,  or  any  person  appointed 
by  him  for  that  purpose  may  make  complaint  and  cause 
proceedings  to  be  commenced  against  any  person  for  the 
enforcement  of  any  of  the  laws  relative  to  adulterated, 
impure  or  unwholesome  food  or  drink,  and  in  such  case 
he  shall  not  be  obliged  to  furnish  security  for  costs  and 
shall  have  power,  in  the  performance  of  his  duties,  to  enter 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS. 


into  any  creamery,  factory,  store,  salesroom,  drug  store, 
or  laboratory,  or  place  where  he  has  reason  to  believe  food, 
or  drink  is  made,  stored,  sold  or  offered  for  sale  and  open 
any  cask,  tub,  jar,  bottle  or  package  containing,  or  sup- 
posed to  contain,  any  article  of  food  or  drink  and  examine 
or  cause  to  be  examined  the  contents  thereof,  and  take 
therefrom  samples  for  analysis.  The  person  making  such 
inspection  shall  take  such  sample  of  such  article  or  product 
in  the  presence  of  at  least  one  witness,  and  he  shall,  in  the 
presence  of  said  witness,  mark  or  seal  such  sample  and 
shall  tender  at  the  time  of  taking  to  the  manufacturer  or 
vendor  of  such  product,  or  to  the  person  having  the  cus- 
tody of  the  same,  the  value  thereof,  and  a  statement  in 
writing  for  the  taking  of  such  sample.  Whenever  it  is 
•determined  by  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  his 
deputy  or  inspectors,  that  filthy  or  unsanitary  conditions 
exist  or  are  permitted  to  exist  in  the  operation  of  any  bak- 
■ery,  confectionary,  or  ice  cream  plant,  or  in  any  place  where 
any  food  or  drink  products  are  manufactured,  stored,  de- 
posited or  sold  for  any  purpose  whatever,  the  proprietor 
•or  proprietors,  owner  or  owners,  of  such  bakery,  confec- 
tionary or  ice  cream  plant,  or  any  person  or  persons  own- 
ing or  operating  any  plant  where  any  food  or  drink  pro- 
ducts are  manufactured,  stored,  deposited  or  sold,  shall 
be  first  notified  and  warned  by  the  commissioner,  his  deputy 
or  inspectors  to  place  such  bakery,  confectionary  or  ice 
<;ream  plant,  or  any  place  where  any  food  or  drink  products 
are  manufactured,  stored,  deposited  or  sold  in  a  sanitary 
<}ondition  within  a  reasonable  length  of  time;  and  any  per- 
son or  persons  owning  and  operating  any  bakery,  confec- 
tionary or  ice  cream  plant  or  any  place  where  any  food 
or  drink  products  are  manufactured,  stored,  deposited  or 
sold,  failing  to  obey  such  notice  and  warning,  shall  be  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  upon  conviction  thereof,  shall  be 
punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  twenty-five  dollars 
nor  more  than  three  hundred  dollars  and  costs  of  prosecu- 
tion, or  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  to  exceed 
ninety  days,  or  until  such  fine  and  costs  are  paid,  or  both 
fine  and  imprisonment  at  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  245,  P.  A.  1895.    Am.  by  Act  No.  154,  P.  A.  1897. 
Am.  by  Act  No.  268,  P.  A.  1899.    Am.  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 


STATE  OF  MICHIGAN 


7.  (C.  L.,  4979)  Sec.  7.  The  commissioner,  his  deputy 
or  any  person  by  said  commissioner  duly  appointed  for 
that  purpose,  is  authorized  at  all  times  to  seize  and  take 
possession  of  any  and  all  food  and  dairy  products,  sub- 
stitutes therefor,  or  imitation  thereof  kept  for  sale,  exposed 
for  sale  or  held  in  possession  or  under  the  control  of  any 
person  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  said  commissioner,  or 
his  deputy  or  such  person  by  him  duly  appointed,  shall 
be  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  act  or  other  laws  which 
now  exist  or  which  may  be  hereafter  enacted. 

First,  The  person  so  making  such  seizure  as  aforesaid^ 
shall  take  from  such  goods  as  seized  a  sample  for  the  pur- 
pose of  analysis  and  shall  cause  the  remainder  thereof  to 
be  boxed  and  sealed  and  shall  leave  the  «ame  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  person  from  whom  they  were  seized,  sub- 
ject to  such  disposition  as  shall  hereafter  be  made  thereof 
according  to  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

Second,  The  person  so  making  such  seizure,  shall  for- 
ward the  sample  sb  taken  to  the  State  Analyst  for  analysis, 
who  shall  make  an  analysis  of  the  same  and  shall  certify 
the  results  of  such  analysis,  which  certificate  shall  be  prima 
facie  evidence  of  the  fact  or  facts  therein  certified  to  in 
any  court  where  the  same  may  be  offered  in  evidence. 

Third,  If  upon  such  analysis  it  shall  appear  that  said 
food  or  dairy  products  are  adulterated,  substitutes  or  im- 
itations within  the  meaning  of  this  act,  said  commissioner, 
or  his  deputy  or  any  person  by  him  duly  authorized  may 
make  complaint  before  any  justice  of  the  peace  or  police 
justice  having  jurisdiction  in  the  city,  village  or  township 
where  such  goods  were  seized,  and  thereupon  said  justice 
of  the  peace  shall  issue  his  summons  to  the  person  from 
whom  said  goods  were  seized,  directing  him  to  appear  not 
less  than  six  nor  more  than  twelve  days  from  the  date  of 
the  issuing  of  said  summons  and  show  cause  why  said  goods 
should  not  be  condemned  and  disposed  of.  If  the  said 
person  from  whom  said  goods  were  seized  cannot  be  found 
said  summons  shall  be  served  upon  the  person  then  in 
possession  of  the  goods.  The  said  summons  shall  be 
served  at  least  six  days  before  the  time  of  appearance  men- 
tioned therein.      If    the    person   from    whom  said    goods 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS. 


were  seized  cannot  be  found,  and  no  one  can  be  found  in 
possession  of  said  goods,  and  the  defendants  shall  not  ap- 
pear on  the  return  day,  then  said  justice  of  the  peace  shall 
proceed  in  said  cause  in  the  same  manner  provided  by  law 
where  a  writ  of  attachment  is  returned  not  personally 
served  upon  any  of  the  defendants  and  none  of  the  de- 
fendants shall  appear  upon  the  return  day. 

Fourth,  Unless  cause  to  the  contrary  thereof  is  shown,  or 
if  said  goods  shall  be  found  upon  trial  to  be  in  violation  of 
any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  or  other  laws  which  now 
exist  or  which  may  be  hereafter  enacted,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  said  justice  of  the  peace  or  police  justice  to  render 
judgment  that  said  seized  property  be  forfeited  to  the 
State  of  Michigan,  and  that  the  said  goods  be  destroyed 
or  sold  by  the  said  commissioner  for  any  purpose  other 
than  to  be  used  for  food.  The  mode  of  procedure  before 
said  justice  shall  be  the  same,  as  near  as  may  be  as  in  civil 
proceedings  before  justices  of  the  peace.  Either  parties 
may  appeal  to  the  circuit  court  as  appeals  are  taken  from 
justices'  courts,  but  it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  the  people 
to  give  any  appeal  bond. 

Fifth,  The  proceeds  arising  from  any  such  sale  shall  be 
paid  into  the  State  treasury  and  credited  to  the  general 
fund:  Provided,  That  if  the  owner  or  parjty  claiming  the 
property  or  goods  so  declared  forfeited  can  produce  and 
prove  a  written  guaranty  of  purity,  signed  by  the  whole- 
saler, jobber,  manufacturer  or  other  party  from  whom 
said  articles  were  purchased,  then  the  proceeds  of  the  sale 
of  such  articles,  over  and  above  the  costs  of  seizure,  for- 
feiture, and  sale,  shall  be  paid  over  to  such  owner  or  claim- 
ant to  reimburse  him,  to  the  extent  of  such  surplus,  for 
his  actual  loss  resulting  from  such  seizure  and  forfeiture,, 
as  shown  by  the  invoice. 

Sixth,  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  each  prosecuting  attorney 
when  called  upon  by  said  commissioners  or  by  any  person 
by  him  authorized  as  aforesaid,  to  render  any  legal  assist- 
ance in  his  power  in  proceedings  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  or  any  subsequent  act  relative  to  the  adulteration 
of  food,  for  the  sale  of  impure  or  unwholesome  food  or 
food  products. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.' 245,  P.'A.  1895.    Am.' by  Act.No.  268,  P.  A.  1899. 
Am.  by  Act  No.  230,  P.  A.  1903.] 
2 


10  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

8.  (C.  L.,  4980)  Sec.  8.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  the 
State  Analyst,  while  he  holds  his  office  to  furnish  to  any 
individual,  firm  or  corporation,  any  certificate  as  to  the 
purity  or  excellence  of  any  article  manufactured  or  scld 
by  them  to  be  used  as  food  or  in  the  preparation  of  food. 

9.  (C.  L.,  4981)  Sec.  9.  The  commissioner  shall  make 
an  annual  report  to  the  Governor  on  or  before  the  first 
•day  of  July  in  each  year,  and  which  shall  be  printed  and 
published  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  September  next 
thereafter,  which  report  shall  cover  the  doings  of  his  office 
for  the  preceding  fiscal  year,  which  shall  show,  among 
other  things,  the  number  of  manufactories  and  other  places 
inspected  and  by  whom,  the  number  of  specimens  of  food 
articles  analyzed,  and  the  State  Analyst's  report  upon  each 
one;  the  number  of  complaints  entered  against  persons 
for  violation  of  the  laws  relative  to  the  adulteration  of 
food,  the  number  of  convictions  had,  and  the  amount  of 
fines  imposed  therefor,  together  with  such  recommenda- 
tions relative  to  the  statutes  in  force  as  his  experience  may 
justify.  The  commissioner  shall  also  prepare,  print  and 
distribute  to  all  the  papers  of  the  State,  and  to  such  per- 
sons as  may  be  interested  or  may  apply  therefor,  a  month- 
ly bulletin,  in  suitable  paper  covers,  containing  results  of 
inspections,  the  results  of  analyses  made  by  the  State  An- 
alyst, with  popular  explanation  of  the  same,  and  such  other 
information  as  may  come  to  him  in  his  official  capacity 
relating  to  the  adulteration  of  food  and  drink  products 
and  of  dairy  products,  so  far  as  he-  may  deem  the  same  of 
benefit  and  advantage  to  the  pubHc;  also  a  brief  summary 
of  all  the  work  done  during  the  month  by  the  commission- 
er and  his  assistants  in  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the 
State,  but  not  more  than  ten  thousand  copies  of  each  such 
monthly  bulletin  shall  be  printed. 

[Am.  bv  Act  No.  245,  P.  A.  1895.  Am.  by  Act  No.  154,  P.  1897. 
Am.  by  Act  No.  268,  P.  A.  1899.] 

10.  (C.  L.,  4982)  Sec.  10.  Any  person  who  shall 
wilfully  hinder  or  obstruct  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commis- 
sioner, or  his  deputy  or  other  person  or  inspector  by  him 
duly  authorized,  in  the  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  11 

upon  him  by  this  act,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misde- 
)neanor,  and  on  conviction  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of 
idtr  less  than  ten  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dol- 
,ai(s,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  not  less  than 
ten  aays  nor  more  than  ninety  days,  or  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 
I  Added  by  Act  No.  245,  1895.] 

11.  (C.  L.,  4983)  Sec.  11.  The  sum  of  thirty-five 
thousand  dollars  is  hereby  appropriated  for  the  fiscal  year 
•ending  June  thirty,  nineteen  hundred  six,  and  for  each 
fiscal  year  thereafter,  there  is  hereby  appropriated  the 
sum  of  thirty-five  thousand  dollars.  Out  of  the  amounts 
appropriated  by  this  act  shall  be  paid  all  salaries  and  ex- 
penses and  chemical  supplies  provided  for  therein:  Pro- 
vided, That  all  expenses  for  stationery  and  printing  shall 
be  audited  and  paid  in  the  same  manner  as  other  State 
printing  and  stationery. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  245,  P.  A.  1895.  Am.  by  Act  No.  154,  P.  A. 
1897.  Am.  by  Act  No.  268,  P.  A.  1899.  Am.  by  Act  No.  186,  P.  A. 
1901.     Am  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

12.  (C.  L.,  4984)  Sec.  12.  The  Auditor  General  is 
hereby  directed  to  annually  add  to  and  incorporate  into 
the  State  tax,  to  be  levied  each  year,  the  sum  of  thirty- 
five  thousand  dollars,  which,  when  collected,  shall  be  credited 
to  the  general  fund  to  reimburse  the  same  for  the  money 
appropriated  by  this  act. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  245,  P.  A.  1895.  Am.  by  Act  No.  154,  P.  A. 
1897.  Am.  by  Act  No.  268,  P.  A.  1899.  Am.  bv  Act  No.  186,  P.  A. 
1901.*  Am.  by  Act  No.  230,  P.  A.  1903.  fAm.  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

13.  Sec.  13.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner  to  foster  and  encourage  the  dairy 
industry  of  the  State,  and,  for  that  purpose,  he  shall  inves- 
tigate the  general  conditions  of  the  creameries,  cheese  fac- 
tories, condensed  milk  factories,  skimming  stations,  milk 
stations  and  farm  dairies  in  this  State,  with  full  power  to 
enter  upon  any  premises  for  such  investigation,  with  the 
object  in  view  of  improving  the  quality  and  creating  and 


12  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

maintaining  uniformity  of  the  dairy  products  of  the  State; 
and  should  it  become  necessary,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  he  may  cause  instruction 
to  be  given  in  any  creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed 
milk  factory,  skimming  station,  milk  station,  or  farm  dairy, 
or  in  any  locality  in  this  State,  and  in  order  to  secure  the 
proper  feeding  and  care  of  cows,  or  the  practical  operation 
of  any  plant  producing  dairy  products,  and  in  order  to 
secure  such  a  uniform  and  standard  quality  of  dairy  pro- 
ducts in  this  State,  he  shall  furnish  a  sufficient  number 
of  competent  inspectors,  the  appointment  of  whom  is  pro- 
vided for  in  section  four  of  this  act,  and  they  shall  be  duly 
qualified  to  act  as  such  inspectors. 
[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

14.  Sec.  14.  Whenever  it  is  determined  by  the  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner,  his  deputy  or  inspectors,  that 
any  person  is  using,  selling  or  furnishing  to  any  skimming 
station,  creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory, 
milk  depot,  farm  dairy,  milk  dealer,  the  retail  trade  or  to 
any  consumer  of  milk,  any  impure  or  unwholesome  milk 
or  cream,  which  impurity  or  unwholesomeness  is  caused 
by  the  unsanitary  or  filthy  condition  of  the  premises  where 
cows  are  kept,  or  by  the  unsanitary  or  filthy  care  or  hand- 
ling of  the  cows,  or  from  the  use  of  unclean  utensils  or  from 
unwholesome  food,  or  from  any  other  cause,  the  person 
so  using,  selling  or  furnishing  to  any  skimming  station,, 
creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory,  milk 
depot,  farm  dairy,  milk  dealer,  the  retail  trade,  or  to  any 
consumer  of  milk,  any  such  milk  or  cream,  shall  fir^t  be 
notified  and  warned  by  the  commissioner,  his  deputy  or 
inspectors  not  to  use,  sell,  or  furnish  such  milk  or  cream 
to  such  skimming  station,  creamery,  cheese  factory,  con- 
densed milk  factory,  milk  depot,  farm  dairy,  milk  dealer, 
the  retail  trade,  or  to  any  consumer  of  milk,  and  any  per- 
son failing  to  obey  such  notice  and  warning,  and  continuing 
to  use,  sell  or  furnish  to  any  skimming  station,  creamery, 
cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory,  farm  dairy,  milk 
dealer  or  to  the  retail  trade  such  impure  or  unwholesome 
milk  or  cream,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  upon 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  13 

conviction  thereof,  shall  be .  punished  by  a  fine  not  less 
than  ten  dollars,  nor  more  than  fifty  dollars,  and  costs  of 
prosecution,  or  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  not  to 
exceed  ninety  days,  or  until  such  fine  and  costs  are  paid, 
or  both  fine  and  imprisonment  at  the  discretion  of  the 
court.  , 

[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

15.  Sec.  15.  Whenever  it  is  determined  by  the  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner,  his  deputy  or  inspectors,  that 
unsanitary  conditions  exist  or  are  permitted  to  exist  in 
the  operation  of  any  skimming  station,  creamery,  cheese 
factory,  condensed  milk  factory,  milk  depot,  or  farm  dairy, 
the  proprietor  or  proprietors,  or  manager  of  said  skim- 
ming station,  creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed  milk 
factory  or  farm  dairy,  shall  be  first  notified  and  warned 
by  the  commissioner,  his  deputy  or  inspectors  to  place 
such  skimming  station,  creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed 
milk  factor}^,  milk  depot  or  farm  dairy  in  a  sanitary  con- 
dition, within  a  reasonable  length  of  time;  and  any  person 
or  persons  owning  or  operating  such  skimming  station, 
creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory,  milk 
depot,  or  farm  dairy,  failing  to  obey  such  notice  and  warn- 
ing, shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  convic- 
tion thereof,  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  (5f  not  less  than 
twenty-five  dollars,  nor  more  than  three  hundred  dollars, 
and  costs  of  prosecution,  or  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail,  not  to  exceed  ninety  days  or  until  such  fine  and  costs 
are  paid,  or  both  fine  and  imprisonment  at  the  discretion 
of  the  court. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

16.^  Sec.  16.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  proprietor  or 
proprietors  of  every  skimming  station,  creamery,  cheese 
factory,  condensed  milk  factory  or  milk  depot,  in  the  State 
where  milk  or  cream  is  received  by  purchase  or  otherwise 
from  three  or  more  persons,  to  register  with  the  Dairy  and 
Food  Commissioner  on  or  before  April  first  of  each  year, 
upon  blanks  furnished  by  said  official,  the  location  of  such 
skimming    station,,  creamery,    cheese    factory,    condensed 


14  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

milk  factory  or  milk  depot,  and  the  name  of  its  owner  or 
owners  and  manager.  And  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
proprietor  or  proprietors  of  every  skimming  station,  cream- 
ery, cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory  or  milk  depot 
in  this  State,  where  milk  or  cream  is  received  by  purchase 
or  otherwise  froija  three  or  more  persons,  to  file  a  report 
with  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  said  report  to 
be  made  on  or  before  April  first  of  each  year,  upon  blanks 
furnished  by  said  official,  and  to  show  the  amount  of  milk 
or  cream  received  by  said  skimming  station,  creamery, 
cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory  or  milk  depot  dur- 
ing the  year  ending  December  thirty-first  preceding;  and 
said  report  shall  show  the  amount  of  butter,  cheese  or  con- 
densed milk  manufactured  during  the  year,  together  with 
a  list  of  the  names  and  postoffice  addresses  of  the  patrons  of 
said  skimming  station,  creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed 
milk  factory  or  milk  depot.  Every  skimming  station,, 
creamery,  cheese  factory,  condensed  milk  factory  or  milk 
depot,  so  registering  and  so  reporting,  shall  pay  to  the 
•  office  of  the  State  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  an  annual 
registration  fee  of  five  dollars,  to  be  paid  at  the  time  of 
such  registration.  The  money  so  collected  by  the  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner  shall  be  paid  into  the  State  treas- 
ury and  be  used  to  help  defray  the  expenses  of  the  office 
of  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  in  addition  to  the 
annual  appropriation  therefor. 
[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

17.     Sec.   17.     Any  person,  persons  or  corporation  who 

shall  sell  milk  or  cream  from  a  wagon  or  other  conveyance, 

depot  or  store,  or  who  shall  sell  or  deliver  milk  or  cream 

to  a  hotel,  restaurant,  boarding  house  or  any  public  place, 

shall  be  considered  a  milk  dealer;  and  every  milk  dealer 

jA    who  shall  sell  milk  or  cream  from  a  wagon  or  other  con- 

//r<;Veyance,  depot  or  store,  or  who  shall  sell,  or  deliver  milk  or 

V^f  cream  to  a  hotel,  restaurant,  boarding  house  or  any  public 

^*^  place  in  any  city,  town  or  village  'of  this  State,  must  first 

obtain  a  license  from  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner 

to  sell  such  milk  or  cream.      A  license  shall  be  required 

for  each  wagon  or  other  conveyance,  depot  or  store.     Each 


^ 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  15- 

dealer  shall  pay  to  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  a'^X  y  ^ 
license  fee  of  one  dollar  for  each  license  so  granted,  which  ic'-' 
license  must  be  obtained  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  July  y^ 
of  each  year.  The  moneys  received  by  the  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner,  in  payment  of  such  licenses,  shall  be  paid 
into  the  State  treasury  and  be  used  to  help  defray  the  ex-  ''^'' 
penses  of  the  office  of  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner 
in  addition  to  the  annual  appropriation.  All  licenses  shall 
be  used  only  in  the  name  of  the  owner  of  the  wagon,  depot 
or  store,  and  shall,  for  the  purpose  of  this  act,  be  prima 
facie  evidence  of  ownership.  No  license  shall  be  sold^ 
assigned,  or  transferred.  Each  license  shall  record  the 
name,  residence,  place  of  business,  number  of  wagons,, 
depots  or  stores  used  (where  more  than  one  is  employed) 
and  the  number  of  the  hcense.  Whoever  violates  any 
.of  the  provisions  of  this  section,  in  so  far  as  relates  to  regis- 
tration and  the  securing  of  licenses,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  for  each  and  every  offense  shall  be 
punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  five  dollars,  nor  more 
than  twenty-five  dollars  and  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or 
by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  not  more  than  thir- 
ty days,  or  both. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

18.  Sec.  18.  Any  manufacturer,  company,  person  or 
persons  who  shall  sell,  offer  or  expose  for  sale  or  for  dis- 
tribution, in  this  State,  any  concentrated  commercial  feed- 
ing stuff  used  for  feeding  five  stock,  shall  furnish  with  each 
car,  or  other  amounts  shipped  in  bulk,  and  shall  affix  to 
every  package  of  such  feeding  stuff,  in  a  conspicuous  place, 
on  the  outside  thereof,  a  plainly  printed  statement,  clear- 
'ly  and  truly  certifying  the  number  of  net  pounds  in  the 
car  or  package  sold  or  offered  for  sale,  the  name  or  trade- 
mark under  which  the  article  is  sold,  the  name  of  the  man- 
ufacturer or  shipper,  the  place  of  manufacture,  the  place 
of  business,  and  a  chemical  analysis,  stating  the  percent- 
ages it  contains  of  crude  protein,  crude  fibre,  nitrogen,  free 
extract  and  ether  extract,  all  constituents  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  methods  adopted  by  the  association  of  offi- 
cial   agricultural    chemists.     Whenever    any    feeding    stuff 


16  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


is  sold  at  retail,  in  bulk  or  in  packages  belonging  to  the  pur- 
chaser, the  agent  or  dealer  shall  furnish  to  him  a  certified 
copy  of  the  chemical  analysis  named  in  this  section. 

(a)  The  term  concentrated  commercial  feeding  stuffs 
as  used  in  this  act  shall  include  linseed  meal,  cotton  seed 
meal,  pea  meals,  cocoanut  meals,  gluten  meals,  oil  meals 
of  all  kinds,  gluten  feeds,  maize  feeds,  starch  feeds,  mixed 
sugar  feeds,  hominy  feeds,  rice  meals,  oat  feeds,  corn  and 
oat  feeds,  meat  meals,  dried  blood,  clover  meals,  mixed 
feeds  of  all  kinds,  slaughter  house  waste  products;  also 
all  condimental  stock  foods,  patented  and  proprietary 
stock  foods,  claimed  to  possess  nutritive  properties  and 
all  other  materials  intended  for  feeding  to  domestic  animals : 
Provided,  That  such  feeding  stuffs,  as  defined  above,  shall 
not  include  hays,  straws,  fodders,  ensilage,  the  whole  seeds 
nor  the  unmixed  meals  made  directly  from'  the  entire  grains 
of  wheat,  rye,  barley,  oats,  flax-seed,  maize,  buckwheat, 
wet  brewers'  grains,  malt  sprouts,  wet  or  dried  beet  pulp 
when  unmixed  with  other  materials.  Neither  shall  it 
include  'wheat,  rye  and  buckwheat  brans  or  middlings 
not  mixed  with  other  substances,  but  sold  separately  as 
distinct  articles  of  commerce,  nor  pure  grains  ground 
together. 

(b)  Before  any  manufacturer,  company,  person  or 
persons  shall  sell,  offer  or  expose  for  sale  in  this  State  any 
concentrated  commercial  feeding  stuff,  he  or  they  shall, 
for  each  and  every  feeding  stuff  bearing  a  distinguishing 
name  or  trade-mark,  file  annually,  with  the  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner  a  certified  copy  of  the  chemical  analysis 
and  certificate  referred  to  in  this  section,  and  shall  de- 
posit with  said  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  a  sealed 
glass  jar,  or  bottle,  containing  at  least  one  pound  of  the 
feeding  stuff  to  be  sold  or  offered  for  sale,  together  with 
an  affidavit  that  it  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  article  thus  to 
be  sold  or  offered  for  sale.  He  or  they  shall  also  pay  an- 
nually into  the  State  treasury  a  license  fee  of  twenty  dol- 
lars for  each  and  every  brand  of  feeding  stuff  he  offers  or 
exposes  for  sale  in  this  State.  Said  fee  is  to  be  paid  on 
or  before  April  first  of  each  year:  Provided,  That  when- 
ever the  manufacturer  or  importer  shall  have  paid  this 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  17 

license  fee,  his  agents  shall  not  be  required  to  do  so.  When- 
ever any  manufacturer,  importer,  agent  or  seller  of  any 
commercial  feeding  stuff  desires  at  any  time  to  sell  such 
material  and  has  not  paid  the  license  fee  therefor,  he  shall 
pay  the  license  fee  prescribed  in  this  section,  before  mak- 
ing any  such  sale.  The  money  collected  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  shall  be  paid  into  the  State  treasury  and 
be  used  to  help  defray  the  expenses  of  the  office  of  the 
Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  in  addition  to  the  regular 
appropriation  therefor. 

(c)  Whenever  the  manufacturer,  importer,  agent  or 
seller  of  any  [commercial  feeding  stuff  shall  have  complied 
with  the  requirements  of  this  section,  the  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner  shall  issue  or  cause  to  be  issued,  a  license, 
permitting  the  sale  of  said  feeding  stuff,  which  license  shall 
terminate  on  April  first  following  the  date  of  issue. 

(d)  All  such  analyses  of  commercial  feeding  stuffs  re- 
quired by  this  act,  shall  be  made  under  the  direction  of 
the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  and  shall  be  paid  for 
out  of  the  funds  arising  from  the  license  fees  provided  for 
in  this  section. 

(e)  The  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  shall  publish, 
or  cause  to  be  published  in  bulletin  form,  at  least  annually 
a  correct  statement  of  all  analyses  made,  together  with 
any  incidental  information  concerning  same  which  he  may 
deem  proper. 

(f)  Any  manufacturer,  importer,  company,  agent,  per- 
son or  persons,  who  shall  sell,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  with- 
out first  complying  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  any 
commercial  feeding  stuff,  or  shall  attach"^ or  cause  to  be 
attached  to  any  car,  package  or  other  quantity  of  said 
feeding  stuff,  an  analysis  stating  that  it  contains  a  larger 
percentage  of  any  one  or  more  of  the  constituents  named 
in  this  section  than  it  really  does  contain  shall,  upon  con- 
viction thereof,  be  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars 
for  the  first  offense,  and  not  less  than  three  hundred  dol- 
lars for  every  subsequent  offense,  and  the  offender  shall 
also  be  liable  for  damages  sustained  by  the  purchaser  of 
such  feeding  stuff  on  account  of  such  misrepresentation. 

(g)  The  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,  by  any  duly 


18  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN.  • 

authorized  agent,  is  hereby  authorized  to  select  from  any 
package  of  commercial  or  other  feeding  stuff  exposed  or 
offered  for  sale  in  this  State,  a  quantity  not  exceeding  two 
pounds  for  a  sample,  such  sample  to  be  used  for  the  pur- 
poses of  an  official  analysis  and  for  comparison  with  the 
certificate  filed  with  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner,, 
and  with  the  certificate  affixed  to  the  package  on  sale. 
•  [Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

19.  Sec.  19.  The  published  annual  report  of  the  Dairy 
and  Food  Commissioner  which  shall  be  made  to  the  Gov- 
ernor, shall  include  a  complete  accounting  of  all  moneys 
received  by  the  department  from  every  source,  and  the 
amount    expended    by    the    department. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 

20.  Sec.  20.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  inconsistent 
with  this  act  so  far  as  they  are  inconsistent  are  hereby 
repealed. 

This  act  is  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect. 
[Added  by  Act  No.  49,  P.  A.  1905.] 


AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner  of  the  State  of  Michigan. 

(Act  No.  167,  Public  Acts,  1899.) 

21.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  That  any  person  who  shall  obstruct  the  Dairy  and 
Food  Commissioner,  or  his  deputy,  or  any  of  his  duly  ap- 
pointed inspectors,  by  refusing  to  allow  him  entrance  to 
any  place  where  he  is  authorized  to  enter  in  the  discharge 
of  his  official  duty,  or  refuses  to  deliver  to  him  a  sufficient 
sample  for  the  analysis  of  any  article  of  food  or  drink  sold, 
offered  or  exposed  for  sale,  or  in  his  possession  for  the  pur- 
pose of  sale,  wherever  the  same  may  be  found,  when  the 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  19 

same  is  requested  and  when  the  value  thereof  is  tendered, 
shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  conviction 
thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  tw^enty- 
five  dollars  or  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  and  the  costs 
of  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not 
less  than  ten  days  or  more  than  ninety  days,  or  by  both 
such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion  of  the  court, 
for  each  and  every  offense. 

This  act  is  oi'dered  to  take  immediate  effect. 


AN  ACT  for  the  prevention  and  suppression  of  foul  brood  among 
bees  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  and  the  inspection  thereof,  and  to 
make  an  appropriation  therefor,  and  to  repeal  act  number  one  hun- 
dred forty-one  of  the  public  acts  of  eighteen  hundred  eighty-one, 
being  sections  "fifty-six  hundred  sixty-three,  fifty-six  hundred  sixty- 
four,  fifty-six  hundred  sixty-five,  fifty-six  hundred  sixt5''-six,  fifty- 
six  hundred  sixty-seven,  fifty-six  hundred  sixty-eight,  fifty-six  hun- 
dred sixty-nine  and  fifty-six  hundred  seventy  of  the  compiled  laws 
of  eighteen  hundred  ninety-seven. 

(Act  No.  66,  Public  Acts,  1901.)  , 

22.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  The  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  upon  receipt 
of  a  certified  copy  of  the  record  of  the  Michigan  State  Bee- 
keepers' Association,  by  the  secretary  of  said  association,, 
showing  that  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  associa- 
tion recommended  the  appointment  of  an  inspector  of  apiar- 
ies, shall  appoint  a  State  inspector  of  apairies.  Said  in- 
spector shall  be  responsible  to  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commis- 
sioner and  shall  comply  with  such  rules  and  regulations: 
as  the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  shall  from  time  to 
time  prescribe  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  work  of  said  State 
inspector. 

23.  Sec.  2.  The  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  'shall, 
when  notified  in  writing  by  the  owner  of  an  apiary  or  by 
three  disinterested  tax  payers  in  the  vicinity  of  the  apiary, 
cause  the  inspector  to  examine  such  apiaries  as  are  re- 


20  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


ported  and  all  others  in  the  same  locality  not  reported, 
and  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  disease  known  as  foul 
brood  or  other  contagious  disease  exists  in  such  apiaries, 
and  if  satisfied  of  the  existence  of  foul  brood,  he  shall  give 
the  owner  or  caretaker  of  the  diseased  apiaries  full  instruc- 
tions how  to  treat  said  case  as  in  the  inspector's  judgment 
seems  best. 

24.  Sec.  3.  The  inspector  who  shall  be  the  sole  judge 
may  visit  all  diseased  apiaries  a  second  time  and  if  need 
be  burn  all  colonies  of  bees  and  combs  that  may  be  found 
not  cured  of  foul  brood  or  other  contagious  diseases. 

25.  Sec.  4.  If  the  owner  of  a  diseased  apiary,  honey 
or  appliances  shall  knowingly  or  wilfully  sell,  barter  or 
give  away  any  bees,  honey  or  appliances,  or  expose  other 
bees  to  the  danger  of  said  disease  or  refuse  to  allow  said 
inspector  to  inspect  such  apiary,  honey  or  appliances,  said 
owner  shall  on  conviction  before  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
be  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more 
than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  not  less  than  one  month's 
imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  nor  more  than  two  month's 
imprisonment. 

26.  Sec.  5.  In  addition  to  such  individual  reports  as 
are  required  under  this  act  by  the  inspector  of  apiaries, 
he  shall  make  an  annual  report  to  the  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner,  giving  the  number  of  the  apiaries  visited, 
the  number  of  diseased  apiaries  found,  the  number  of  col- 
onies treated,  also  the  number  of  colonies  destroyed  by 
fire,  and  an  itemized  account  of  his  transportation  ex- 
penses with  affidavit  annexed  thereto. 

27.  Sec.  6.  There  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any 
moneys  in  the  State  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated 
a  sum  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  per  year  for  the 
suppression  of  foul  brood  among  the  bees  in  Michigan. 
The  inspector  shall  receive  three  dollars  per  day  and  actual 
transportation  expenses  ft)r  actual  time  served,  which 
sum  shall  not  exceed  the  money  hereby  appropriated,  to 
be  paid  by  the  State  Treasurer  upon  warrants  drawn  by 
the  Auditor  General  and  approved  by  the  Dairy  and  Food 
Commissioner. 

28.  Sec.  7.     Act  number  one  hundred  forty-one  of  the 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  21 

public  acts  of  eighteen  hundred  eighty-one,  being  section 
fifty-six  hundred  sixty-three,  fifty-six  hundred  sixty-four, 
fifty-six  hundred  sixty-five,  fifty-six  hundred  sixty-six, 
fifty-six  hundred  sixty-seven,  fifty-six  hundred  sixty-eight, 
fifty  six  hundred  sixty-nine  and  fifty-six  hundred  seventy 
of  the  compiled  laws  of  eighteen  hundred  ninety-seven 
is  hereby  repealed. 

This  act  is  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect. 


22  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


GENERAL  FOOD  LAW. 


AN  ACT  to  prohibit  and  prevent  adulteration,   fraud  and   deception 
in  the  manufacture,  and  sale  of  articles  of  food  and  drink. 

(Act  No.  193,  PubUc  Acts,  1895.) 

29.  (C.  L.,  5010)  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State 
of  Michigan  enact,  That  no  person  shall  within  this  State 
manufacture  for  sale,  have  in  his  possession  with  intent 
to  sell,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  or  sell,  any  article  of  food 
which  is  adulterated  wdthin  the  meaning  of  this  act. 

[Am.  by  act  No.  118,  P.  A.  1897.]  ,  ,  „,  j  j^  J  M^mWSEM  1 

30.  (C.  L.,  5011)  Sec.  2.  The  term  food,  as  used 
herein,  shall  include  all  articles  used  for  food  or  drink,  or 
intended  to  be  eaten  or  drank  by  man,  whether  simple, 
mixed  or  compound. 

31.  (C.  L.,  5012)  Sec.  3.  An  article  shall  be  deemed 
to  be  adulterated  within  the  meaning  of  this  act:  Firsts 
If  any  substance  or  substances  have  been  mixed  with  it, 
so  as  to  lower  or  depreciate  or  injuriously  affect  its  quality 
strength  or  purity;  Second,  If  any  inferior  or  cheaper  sub- 
stance or  substances  have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in 
part  for  it;  Third,  If  any  valuable  or  necessary  constitu- 
ent or  ingredient  has  been  wholly  or  in  part  abstracted 
from  it;  Fourth,  If  it  is  an  imitation  of,  or  is  sold  under 
the  name  of  another  article;  Fifth,  If  it  consists  wholly 
or  in  part  of  a  diseased,  decomposed,  putrid,  infected,  tainted 
or  rotten  animal  or  vegetable  substance  or  article,  whether 
manufactured  or  not,  or,  in  the  case  of  milk,  if  it  is  the 
product  of  a  diseased  animal;  Sixth,  If  it  is  colored,  coated, 
poUshed  or  powdered  whereby  damage  or  inferiority  is 
concealed,  or  if  by  any  means  it  is  made  to  appear  better 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  23 

or  of  greater  value  than  it  really  is;  Seventh,  If  it  contains 
any  added  substance  or  ingredient  which  is  poisonous  or 
injurious  to  health:  Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  act 
shall  prevent  the  coloring  of  pure  butter:  And  provided 
further.  That  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply 
to  mixtures  or  compounds  recognized  as  ordinary  articles 
or  ingredients  of  articles  of  food,  if  each  and  every  pack- 
age sold  or  offered  for  sale  bear  the  name  and  address  of 
"the  manufacturer  and  be  distinctly  labeled  under  its  own 
distinctive  name,  and  in  a  manner  so  as  to  plainly  and  cor- 
rectly show  .that  it  is  a  mixture  or  compound,  and  is  not 
in  violation  with  definition  fourth  and  seventh  of  this  section. 
[Am.  by  Act  No.  118,  P.  A.  1897.] 

32.  (C.  L.,  5013)  Sec.  4.  No  person,  by  himself 
or  his  agents  or  servants,  shall  manufacture  for  sale  or  offer 
or  expose  for  sale,  or  sell,  as  butter,  and  the  legitimate  prod- 
uct of  the  dairy  or  creamery,  any  article  not  made  exclu- 
sively of  milk  or  cream,  but  into  which  the  oil  or  fat  of 
animals,  or  any  other  oils  not  produced  from  milk,  enters 
as  a  component  part,  has  been  introduced  to  take  the  place 
of  cream.  Whoever  violates  the  provisions  of  this  section 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  con- 
viction thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  gf  not  less  than 
fifty  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  and  the  costs 
of  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  or 
the  State  House  of  Correction  and  Reformatory  at  Ionia 
for  not  less  than  ninety  days  nor  more  than  two  years, 
or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court  for  each  and  every  offense. 

33.  (C.  L.,  5014)  Sec.  5.  No  person  shall  manu- 
facture, deal  in,  sell,  offer  or  expose  for  sale  or  exchange, 
any  article  or  substance  in  the  semblance  of,  or  in  imita- 
tion of  cheese  made  exclusively  of  unadulterated  milk  or 
■cream,  or  both,  into  which  any  animal,  intestinal  or  offal 
fats  or  oils  or  melted  butter  in  any  condition  or  state  or 
modification  of  the  same,  or  oleaginous  substances  of  any 
kind  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  shall 
have  been  introduced.  Whoever  shall  violate  the  provisions 
of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 


24  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars 
and  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  or  the  State  House  of  Correction  and  Reform- 
atory at  Ionia  for  not  less  than  ninety  days  nor  more  than 
two  years,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the 
discretion  of  the  court  for  each  and  every  offense. 

34.  (C.  L.,  5015)  Sec.  6.  Every  manufacturer  of 
full  milk  cheese  may  put  a  brand  upon  each  cheese,  indicat- 
ing 'Tull  milk  cheese,"  and  no  person  shall  use  such  a 
brand  upon  any  cheese  made  from  milk  from  which  any 
of  the  cream  has  been  taken.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
proprietor  of  every  cheese  factory,  creamery  or  butter 
factory  in  the  State  where  milk  or  cream  is  purchased  of 
or  contributed  by  three  or  more  persons,  to  register  the- 
location  of  such  cheese  factory,  creamery  or  butter  factory 
and  the  name  of  its  owner  or  manager  with  the  Dairy  and 
Food  Commissioner  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  October, 
A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  ninety-seven,  and  on  or  before  the- 
first  day  of  April  in  each  year  thereafter.  Whoever  violates 
any  of  the  provisions  of  this  section,  in  so  far  as  it  relates- 
to  registration,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,, 
and  for  each  and  every  offense  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  five  dollars  nor  more  than  twenty-five  dol- 
lars and  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in 
the  county  jail  for  not  more  than  thirty  days  or  both. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  118,  P.  A.  1897.] 

35.  (C.  L.,  5016)  Sec.  7.  The  Dairy  and  Food  Com- 
missioner shall  procure  and  issue  to  the  cheese  manufac- 
turers of  the  State,  on  proper  appUcation,  which  applica- 
tion shall  be  made  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  October,. 
A.  D.  eighteen  hundred  ninety-five  and  on  or  before  the 
first  day  of  April  in  each  year  thereafter,  and  under  such 
regulation  as  to  the  custody  and  use  thereof  as  he  may 
prescribe,  a  uniform  stencil  brand,  bearing  a  suitable  de- 
vice or  motto  and  the  words  ' 'Michigan  full  cream  cheese.'' 
Every  such  brand  shall  be  used  on  the  outside  of  the  cheese, 
and  upon  the  package  containing  the  same,  and  shall  bear 
a  separate  number  for  each  separate  factory.     The  said 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  25 

commissioner  shall  keep  a  book  in  which  shall  be  registered 
the  name,  location  and  number  of  each  manufactory  using 
the  brand,  and  the  name  or  names  of  persons  at  each  fac- 
tory authorized  to  use  the  same.  No  such  brand  shall 
be  used  on  other  than  full  cream  cheese  or  packages  contain- 
ing the  same.  The  commissioner  shall  receive  a  fee  of 
one  dollar  for  each  registration,  said  fee  to  be  paid  by  the 
party  applying  for  the  same,  which  amount  shall  be  ac- 
counted for  and  used  as  a  part  of  the  fund  appropriated 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  this  State  with  which 
the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  is  charged. 

36.  (C.  L.,  5017)  Sec.  8.  No  person  shall  knowingly 
offer,  sell  or  expose  for  sale,  in  any  package  cheese  which 
is  falsely  branded  or  labeled. 

37.  (C.  L.,  5018)  Sec.  9.  No  person  shall  within 
this  State  manufacture  for  sale,  have  in  his  possession  with 
intent  to  sell,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  or  sell  as  lard,  any 
substance  not  the  legitimate  and  exclusive  product  of  the 
fat  of  the  hog. 

38.  (C.  L.,  5019)  Sec.  10.  Every  person  who  manu- 
factures for  sale,  has  in  his  possession'  with  intent  to  sell, 
offers  or  exposes  for  sale,  or  sells,  any  substance  made  in 
the  semblance  of  lard,  or  as  an  imitation  of  lard,  and  which 
consists  of  any  mixture  or  compound  of  animal  or  vegetable 
oils,  or  fats,  other  than  hog  fat,  in  the  form  of  lard,  shall 
cause  the  tierce,  barrel,  tub,  pail  or  package  containing 
the  same  to  be  distinctly  and  legibly  branded  or  labeled 
*'Lard  substitute  or  compound,'^  and  every  person  who 
manufactures  for  sale,  has  in  his  possession  with  intent 
to  sell,  offers  or  exposes  for  sale  or  sells,  any  substance  made 
in  the  semblance  of  lard  or  as  an  imitation  of  lard,  or  as 
a  substitute  for  lard,  and  which  is  designed  to  take  the 
place  of  lard,  and  which  consists  of  any  mixture  or  com- 
pound of  lard  with  animal  or  vegetable  oils  or  fats,  shall 
cause  the  tierce,  barrel,  tub,  pail  or  package  containing: 
the  same  to  be  distinctly  and  legibly  branded  or  labeled 
either  ''Adulterated  lard,"  ''Lard  compound,"  or  "Lard 
substitute."  Such  brands  or  labels  shall  be  in  letters  not 
less   than   one  inch   in  length  and  shall  be  followed  with 

4 


26  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


the  name  of  the  maker  and  factory,  and  the  location  of 
such  factory. 

39.  (C.  L.,  5020)  Sec.  11.  Every  dealer  or  trader 
who,  by  himself  or  agent,  or  as  the  servant  or  agent  of 
another  person,  offers  or  exposes  for  sale,  or  sells  any  form 
of  lard  substitute  or  adulterated  lard,  as  hereinbefore  de- 
fined, shall  securely  affix  or  cause  to  be  affixed  to  the  pack- 
age wherein  the  same  is  contained,  offered  for  sale  or  sold, 
a  label,  upon  the  outside  and  face  of  which  is  distinctly 
and  legibly  printed  in  letters  not  less  than  one-half  inch 
in  length,  the  words  ''Lard  substitute"  or  "Adulterated 
lard"  or  ''Lard  compound"  or  other  appropriate  word 
which  shall  corectly  express  its  nature  and  use. 

40.  (C.  L.,  5021)  Sec.  12.  The  having  in  possession 
of  any  lard  substitute  or  adulterated  lard  or  lard  compound, 
as  hereinbefore  defined,  which  is  not  branded  or  labeled 
as  hereinbefore  required  and  directed,  upon  the  part  of 
any  dealer  or  trader,  or  any  person  engaged  in  the  public 
sale  of  such  articles,  shall  for  the  purpose  of  the  act  be 
deemed  prima^  facie  evidence  of  intent  to  sell  the  same. 

41.  (C.  L.,  5022)  Sec.  13.  No  person,  firm  or  cor- 
poration in  this  State  shall  manufacture  for  sale,  or  sell, 
or  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  as  fruit  jelly  or  fruit  butter,  any 
jelly  or  imitation  fruit  butter  or  other  similar  compound 
made  or  composed  in  whole  or  in  part  of  glucose,  dextrine, 
starch  or  other  substances,  and  colored  in  imitation  of 
fruit  jelly  or  fruit  butter;  nor  shall  any  such  jelly,  fruit 
butter  or  compound  be  manufactured  or  sold,  or  offered 
for  sale,  under  any  name  or  designation  whatever,  unless 
the  same  shall  be  composed  entirely  of  ingredients  not 
injurious  to  health,  and  shall  not  be  colored  in  imitation 
of  fruit  jelly,  and  every  can,  pail  or  {)ackage  of  such  .jelly 
or  butter  sold  in  this  State  shall  be  distinctly  and  durably 
labeled  "Imitation  fruit  jelly  or  butter,"  with  the  name 
of  the  manufacturer  and  the  place  where  made.  Who- 
ever violates  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  when  convicted  thereof  shall 
be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than 
five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  or  State  House  of  Correction  and  Reformatory  at  Ionia 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  27 

for  not  less  than  ninety  days  nor  more  than  two  years,  or 
by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion  of 
<of  the  court. 

42.  (C.  L.,  5023)  Sec.  14.  No  packer  or  dealer  in 
preserved  or  canned  fruits  and  vegetables,  or  other  articles 
of  food,  shall  sell  or  offer  for  sale  such  canned  articles,  un- 
less such  articles  shall  be  entirely  free  from  substances 
<Dr  ingredients  deleterious  to  health,  and  unless  such  ar- 
ticles bear  a  mark,  stamp,  brand  or  label  bearing  the  name 
and  address  of  the  firm,  person  or  corporation  that  packs 
the  same.  All  ^'Soaked  or  bleached  goods,"  or  goods 
put  up  from  products  dried  before  canning,  shall  be  plainly 
marked,  branded,  stamped  or  labeled  as  such,  with  the 
words  '  'Soaked  or  bleached  goods, "  in  letters  not  less  than 
two-line  pica  in  size,  showing  the  name  of  the  article  and 
the  name  and  address  of  the  packer. 

43.  (C.  L.,  5024)  Sec.  15.  No  person  shall  manu- 
facture or  sell,  or  offer  for  sale  any  manufactured  or  arti- 
ficial coffee  berry  in  imitation  of  the  genuine  berry.  No 
person  shall  manufacture,  sell  or  offer  "or  expose  for  sale 
any  ground  or  prepared  coffee,  which  is  adulterated  with 
chicory  or  other  substance  not  injurious  to,  health,  unless 
•each  package  thereof  shall  be  distinctly  labeled  or  marked 
^  'Coffee  compound, "  together  with  the  name,  and  address 
of  the  manufacturer  or  compounder  thereof,  and  has  no 
other  label  of  whatever  name  or  designation.  No  person 
shall  offer  or  expore  for  sale,  have  in  his  possession  with 
intent  to  sell,  or  sell  any  molasses,  syrup  or  glucose,  unless 
the  barrel,  cask,  keg,  can  or  pail  containing  the  same  shall 
be  distinctly  branded  or  labeled  with  the  true  and  appro- 
priate name;  nor  shall  any  person  offer  or  expose  for  sale, 
have  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell,  or  sell  any  molas- 
ses or  syrup  mixed  with  glucose,  unless  the  barrel,  cask, 
keg  or  pail  containing  the  same  be  distinctly  branded  or 
labeled  ''Glucose  mixture,"  and  the  per  cent  in  which 
glucose  enters  into  its  composition.  Such  barrel,  cask, 
keg  or  pail  shall  be  branded  or  labeled  in  a  conspicuous 
place;  and  such  brands  or  labels  shall  be  in  letters  of  not 
less  than  one-half  inch  in  length.  Glucose  and  glucose  mix- 
tures shall  have  no  other  designation  than  herein  required. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  118,  P.  A.  1897.] 


28  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


44.  (C.  L.,  5025)  Sec.  16.  No  person  shall  within 
this  State  manufacture,  brew,  distil,  have  or  offer  for  sale, 
or  sell,  any  spirituous  or  fermented  or  malt  liquors,  con- 
taining any  substance  or  ingredient  not  normal  or  healthful, 
to  exist  in  spirituous,  fermented  or  malt  liquors,  or  which 
may  be  deleterious  or  detrimental  to  health  when  such 
liquors  are  used  as  a  beverage. 

45.  (C.  L.,  5026)  Sec.  17.  The  taking  of  orders  or 
the  making  of  agreements  or  contracts,  by  any  person,, 
firm  or  corporation,  or  by  any  agent  or  representative 
thereof,  for  the  future  delivery  of  any  of  the  articles,  prod- 
ucts, goods,  wares  or  merchandise  embraced  within  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  shall  be  deemed  a  sale  within  the 
meaning  of  this  act. 

46.  (C.  L.,  5027)  Sec.  18.  Whoever  shall  falsely 
brand,  mark,  stencil  or  label  any  article  or  product  re- 
quired by  this  act  to  be  branded,  marked,  stenciled,  or 
labeled,  or  shall  remove,  alter,  deface,  mutilate,  obliterate, 
imitate  or  counterfeit  any  brand,  mark,  stencil  or  label 
so  required,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and 
upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not 
less  than  one  Jiundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars 
aad  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the 
county  jail  or  State  House  of  Correction  and  Reformatory 
at  Ionia,  for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than  three 
years,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  court  for  each  and  every  offense. 

47.  (C.  L.,  5028)  Sec.  19.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of 
the  acts  or  things  prohibited,  or  wilfully  neglect  or  refuse 
to  do  any  of  the  acts  or  things  enjoined  by  this  act,  or  in 
any  way  violate  any  of  its  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  where  no  specific  penalty  is  pre- 
scribed by  this  act  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less 
than  twenty-five  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or 
by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  for  a  period  of  not  more 
than  ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment, 
in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  117,  P.  A.  1899.] 

48.  (C.   L.,   5029)     Sec.   20.     It  shall  be  the   duty   of 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  29 

the  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner  of  the  State  to  investi- 
gate all  complaints  of  violations  of  this  act,  and  take  all 
steps  necessary  to  its  enforcement.  It  shall"  be  the  duty 
of  all  prosecuting  officers  of  this  State  to  prosecute  to  com- 
pletion all  suits  brought  under  the  provisions  of  this  act 
upon  the  complaint  of  the  commissioner  or  of  any  citizen. 
It  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  food  inspectors  in  cities  to  ex- 
amine all  complaints  made  to  them  of  violation  of  this 
act,  and  to  render  assistance  in  enforcing  its  provisions. 
It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  all  health  boards  in  cities  and 
health  officers  in  townships  to  take  cognizance  of  and  re- 
port or  prosecute  all  violations  of  this  act  that  may  be 
brought  to  their  notice,  or  they  may  have  cognizance  of, 
within  their  jurisdiction. 

49.     Sec.   21.     All   acts   and   parts   of   acts  inconsistent 
with  this  act  are  hereby  repealed. 


BUCKWHEAT  FLOUR. 

AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  manufacture  and    sale  of  buckwheat  flour. 
(Act  No.  208,  Public  Acts,  1903.) 

50.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  Within  this  State  no  person  shall  manufacture, 
offer  or  expose  for  sale,  keep  in  possession  with  intent  to 
sell,  or  sell  any  ground  buckwheat  containing  any  product 
of  wheat,  corn,  rice  or  other  foreign  substance,  unless  each 
and  every  package  thereof  be  distinctly  and  legibly  branded 
or  labeled  ''Buckwheat  Flour  Compound"  in  letters  not 
less  than  one-half  inch  in  length  and  be  followed  with  the 
name  of  the  maker  and  factory  and  the  location  of  such 
factory. 

51.  ^  Sec.  2.  Any  brand  or  label  herein  required  shall 
be  an  inseparable  part  of  the  general  or  distinguishing  label, 
and  such  label  shall  be  that  principal  and  conspicuous  sign 
under^which  it  is  sold,  and  any  other  label  or  printed  mat- 


30  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


ter  upon  the  package  shall  not  be  in  contravention  of  the 
requirements  of  this  act. 

52.  Sec.  3.  The  having  in  possession  of  any  buckwheat 
flour  compound,  which  is  not  branded  or  labeled  as  here- 
inbefore required  and  directed  upon  the  part  of  any  person 
engaged  in  the  public  or  private  sale  of  such  article,  shall, 
for  the  purpose  of  this  act,  be  deemed  prima  facie  evidence 
of  intent  to  sell  the  same. 

53.  Sec.  4.  The  taking  of  orders  or  the  making  of 
agreements  or  contract  by  any  person,  firm  or  corporation 
or  by  any  agent  or  representative  thereof,  for  the  future 
delivery  of  buckwheat  flour  compound  shall  be  deemed 
a  sale  within  the  meaning  of  this  act. 

54.  Sec.  5.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of  the  acts  or  things 
prohibited,  or  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  any  of  the  acts  or 
things  enjoined  by  this  act^  or  in  any  way  violate  any  of 
the  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  less  than  twenty-five 
dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprison- 
ment in  the.  county  jail  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  thirty 
nor  more  than  ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  im- 
prisonment in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

55.  Sec.  6.  Act  number  eighty-four  of  the  public  acts 
of  eighteen  hundred  ninety-seven,  entitled  ^'An  act  to 
prohibit  and  prevent  adulteration,  fraud  and  deception 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  buckwheat  flour,' '  being 
sections  four  thousand  nine  hundred  ninety-four  to  five 
thousand  two,  both  inclusive,  of  the  Compiled  Law^s  of 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  ninety-seven  is  hereby  re- 
pealed. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  31 


VINEGAR. 

AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  vinegar,  and  to 
repeal  act  number  two  hundred  and  twenty-four  of  the  public  acts 
of  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-nine,  approved  July  one,  eighteen 
hundred  and  eighty-  nine. 

(Act  No.  71,  Public  Acts,  1897.) 

56.  (C.  L.,  5003)  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State 
of  Michigan  enact,  That  no  person  shall  manufacture  for 
sale,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell  or  deliver,  or  have  in  his 
possession  with  intent  to  sell,  or  deliver,  any  vinegar  not 
in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act.  No  vinegar 
shall  be  sold  as  apple,  orchard  or  cidar  vinegar,  which  is 
not  the  legitimate  product  of  pure  apple  juice,  known  as 
apple  cider  or  vinegar,  not  made  exclusively  of  said  apple 
cider  or  vinegar  into  which  foreign  substance,  drugs  or 
acids  have  been  introduced,  as  may  appear  upon  proper 
test,  and  upon  said  test,  shall  contain  not  less  than  one  and 
three-fourths  per  cent,  by  weight,  of  cider  vinegar  solids 
upon  full  evaporation  at  the  temperature  of  boiling 
water. 

57.  (C,  L.,  5004)  Sec.  2.  All  vinegar  m'ade  by  fer- 
mentation and  oxidation  without  the  intervention  of  dis- 
tillation shall  be  branded  ' 'ferijfiented  vinegar,"  with  the 
name  of  the  fruit  or  substance  from  which  the  same  is  made. 
Aad  all  vinegar  made  wholly  or  in  part  from  distilled  liquor 
shall  be  branded  ''distilled  vinegar,"  and  all  of  such  dis- 
tilled vinegar  shall  be  free  from  coloring  matter  added 
during  or  after  distillation  and  from  color  other  than  that 
imparted  to  it  by  distillation.  And  all  fermented  vinegar 
not  distilled  shall  contain  not  less  than  one  and  three- 
fourths  per  cent,  by  weight,  upon  full  evaporation  (at  the 
temperature  of  boiling  water)  of  solids,  contained  in  the 
fruit  or  grain  from  which  said  vinegar  is  fermented,  and  said 
vinegar  shall  contain  not  less  than  two  and  a  half  tenths 
of  one  per  cent  ash  or  mineral  matter,  the  §ame  being  the 
product  of  the  material  from  which  said  vinegar  is  manu- 


32  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


factured.  And  all  vinegar  shall  be  made  wholly  from  the 
fruit  or  grain  from  which  it  purports  to  be  or  is  represented 
to  be  made,  and  shall  contain  no  foreign  substance,  and 
shall  contain  not  less  than  four  per  cent,  by  weight,  of 
absolute  acetic  acid. 

58.  (C.  L.,  5005)  Sec.  3.  No  person  shall  manu- 
facture for  sale,  offer  for  sale,  or  have  in  his  possession  with 
intent  to  sell,  any  vinegar  found  upon  proper  test  to  con- 
tain any  preparation  of  lead,  copper,  sulphuric  or  other 
mineral  acid,  or  other  ingredients  injurious  to  health.  And 
all  packages  containing  vinegar  shall  be  marked,  sten- 
ciled or  branded  on  the  head  of  the  cask,  barrel  or  keg 
containing  such  vinegar  with  the  name  and  residence  of 
the  manufacturer  together  with  brand  required  in  section 
two  hereof. 

59.  (C.  L.,  5006)  Sec.  4.  Whoever  violates  any  of 
the  provisions  of  this  act  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  fined 
not  less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dol- 
lars, or  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  to  exceed  nine- 
ty days  and  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

60.  Sec.  5.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  contravening 
the  provisions  of  this  act  are  hereby  repealed. 


l^ILK. 


AN  ACT  to  prevent  and  punish  offenders  for  the  adulteration  of  miik, 
and  the  products  made  therefrom,  and  to  repeal  an  act  entitled 
"An  act.  to  prevent  the  adulteration  of  milk  and  to  prevent  the 
traffic  in*  impure  and  unwholesome  milk,"  approved  March  thirty- 
first,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-one. 

(Act  No.  26,  Public  Acts,  1873.) 

61.  (C.  L.,  11411)  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State 
of  Michigan  enact,  That  whoever  shall  knowingly  sell  to 
any  person  or  persons,  or  sell,  deliver,  or  bring  to  be  manu- 
factured to  any  cheese  or  butter  manufactory  in  this  State, 
any  milk  diluted  with  water,  or  in  any  way  adulterated, 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS. 


or  milk  from  which  any  cream  has  been  taken,  or  milk  com- 
monly known  as  '  'skimmed  milk/ '  or  shall  keep  back  any 
part  of  the  milk  known  as  ' 'strippings, "  with  intent  to 
defraud,  or  shall  knowingly  sell  milk,  the  product  of  a  sick 
jor  diseased  animal  or  animals,  or  any  milk  produced  from 
any  cow  fed  upon  the  refuse  of  a  distillery,  or  of  a  brew- 
ery, or  upon  any  substance  deleterious  to  the  quality  of 
the  milk,  or  shall  knowingly  use  any  poisonous  or  any  de- 
leterious material  in  the  manufacture  of  any  cheese  or 
butter,  or  shall  knowingly  sell  or  offer  to  sell  any  cheese 
or  butter,  in  the  manufacture  of  which  any  poisonous  or 
deleterious  substance  has  been  used,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction  thereof  shall  be  fined 
not  less  than  ten  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dol- 
lars; and  may  be  committed  to  the  county  jail  until  such 
fine  shall  be  paid:  Provided,  That  such  imprisonment 
shall  not  exceed  ninety  days;  and  shall  be  liable  in  double 
the  amount  of  damages  to  the  person  or  persons,  firm,  as- 
sociation, or  corporation  upon  which  such  fraud  shall  have 
been  committed.  An  act  entitled  ''An  act  to  prevent 
the  adulteration  of  milk  and  to  prevent  the  traffic  in  im- 
pure and  unwholesome  milk,"  approved  March  thirty- 
first,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-one,  is  hereby  repealed: 
Provided,  That  any  right  accrued  or  forfeiture  incurred 
under  said  act,  shall  remain  valid  and  binding,  and  may 
be  enforced^under  said  act  as  if  the  same  were  not  repealed. 


AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  sale  of  impure,  unwholesome,  adulterated,  or 
swill  milk  in  the  State   of  Michigan,  and  to  provide  for  inspectors. 

(Act  No.  246,  Public  Acts,  1887.) 

62.  (C.  L.,  11412)  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State 
of  Michigan  enact,  That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  per- 
son, either  by  himself  or  agent,  to  sell  or  expose  for  sale 
within  the  State  of  Michigan  any  unwholesome,  watered, 
or  adulterated  or  impure  milk  or  swill  milk  or  colostrum, 
or  milk  from  cows  kept  upon  garbage,  swill  or  any  sub- 

5 


34  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


stance  in  a  state  of  fermentation  or  putrefaction  or  other 
deleterious  substances,  or  from  cows  kept  in  connection 
with  any  family  in  which  there  are  infectious  diseases. 
The  addition  of  water  or  ice  to  the  milk  is  hereby  declared 
an  adulteration. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 

63.  (C.  L.,  11413)  Sec.  2.  Any  person  who  shall 
violate  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  preceding  section  shall 
be  punished  by  a  fine  not  to  exceed  one  hundred  dollars 
or  (by)  imprisonment  not  to  exceed  three  months  or  by 
both  such  fine  and  imprisonment,  in  the  discretion  of  the 
court. 

64.  (C.  L.,  11414)  Sec.  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
the  metropolitan  poUce  commissioners  of  the  city  of  De- 
troit, by  and  with  the  consent  and  advice  .of  the  board  of 
health  of  the  city  of  Detroit,  to  appoint  an  inspector,  who 
shall  be  a  person  of  previous  practical  experience.  Said 
inspector  may  be  created  captain,  sergeant  or  roundsman 
of  the  said  police  force  of  the  city  of  Detroit,  at  the  option 
of  the  board  of  metropolitan  police  commissioners. 

65.  (C.  L.,  11415)  Sec.  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
said  inspector  to  personally  view,  so  far  as  possible,  all 
milk  exposed  for  sale  in  said  city,  and  to  visit  all  dairy 
houses,  barns,  or  stables  in  said  city  or  the  county  of  Wayne^ 
to  inspect  the  same,  and  the  animals  held  therein,  and 
to  visit  all  places  where  milk  is  kept  or  exposed  for  sale  in 
the  city  of  Detroit,  and  to  inspect  and  ascertain  the  con- 
dition of  said  milk.  He  may  detail  any  patrolman  of  said 
city  to  assist  him  in  the  performance  of  any  or  all  of  the 
duties*  enjoined  on  him  by  this  act:  Provided,  always. 
That  said  inspector  and  any  policeman  so  detailed  shall 
alway  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  law  establishing 
and  governing  the  metropolitan  police  of  said  city. 

66.  (C.  L.,  11416)  Sec.  5.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
said  inspector  or  of  his  assistant,  and  of  all  other  inspect- 
ors appointed  under  this  act,  to  make  complaint  in  writing 
before  a  police  justice  or  justice  of  the  peace,  or  other  court 
having  jurisdiction  thereof,  of  every  violation  of  this  act 
coming  to  his  knowledge. 

[Am.  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  35 

67.  (C.  L.,  11417)  Sec.  6.  Each  and  every  quantity 
of  milk  sold  or  exposed  for  sale  contrary  to  the  provisions 
of  this  act,  shall  constitute  a  separate  offense. 

68.  (C.  L.,  11418)  Sec.  7.  Any  person  who  shall 
refuse  to  permit  the  said  inspector,  or  his  assistant  (assist- 
ants,) to  perform  his  duty  under  this  act,  either  by  re- 
fusing him  entrance  to  his  premises  or  by  concealing  any 
milk,  or  refusing  to  permit  any  milk  or  animal  or  premises 
wherein  animals  are  kept,  to  be  viewed  and  inspected  as 
herein  provided,  or  by  in  any  manner  hindering  or  resist- 
ing any  said  inspector  or  assistant  inspector  in  the  per- 
formance of  his  duty,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  punished  therefor. 

69.  (C.  L.,  11419)  Sec.  8.  Authority  is  hereby  given 
the  common  council  of  any  city,  and  the  board  of  trustees 
or  council  of  any  village,  to  appoint  an  inspector  of  milk 
in  any  such  city  or  village,  and  to  fix  their  compensation, 
and  when  appointed  the  said  inspectors  of  milk  shall  have 
all  the  powers  given  by  section  four  of  this  act,  and  shall 
perform  all  the  duties  required  of  inspectors  of  milk  as 
provided  herein,  and  such  other  powers  and  duties  as  may 
be  conferred  or  imposed  by  the  ordinances  of  said  cities 
or  villages. 

70.  (C.  L.,  11420)  Sec.  9.  Whoever  shall  adulter- 
ate by  himself,  or  by  his  servant  or  agent,  or  sell,  exchange 
or  deliver,  or  have  in  his  custody  or  possession  with  intent 
to  sell  or  exchange  the  same,  or  exposes  or  offers  for  sale; 
or  exchange,  adulterated  milk  or  milk  to  which  water  or 
any  foreign  (substance)  substances  in  any  state  of  fermen- 
tation or  putrefaction,  or  from  sick  or  diseased  cows,  shall 
be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall,  for  every  such  offense, 
be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars 
or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  or  the  State  House 
of  Correction  and  Reformatory  at  Ionia  not  exceeding 
three  months. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 

.71.  (C.  L.,  11421)  Sec.  10.  Whoever  shall  adulter- 
ate, himself,  or  by  his  servant  or  agent,  sell,  exchange  or 
deliver,  or  have  in  his  custody  or  possession  with  intent 


36  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


to  sell  or  exchange  the  same,  or  exposes  or  offers  for  sale 
as  pure  milk,  any  skimmed  milk  from  which  the  cream  or 
any  part  thereof  has  been  removed  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, and  shall,  for  such  offense,  be  punished  by  the 
penalty  provided  in  the  preceding  section. 
[Added  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 

72.  (a  L.,  11422)  Sec.  11.  Any  dealer  in  milk  who 
shall  by  himself,  servant  or  agent,  sell,  exchange  or  deliver, 
or  have  in  his  custody  or  possession  with  intent  to  sell, 
exchange  or  deliver  the  same,  milk  from  which  the  cream 
or  any  part  thereof  has  been  removed,  unless  in  a  con- 
spicuous place  above  the  center  upon  the  outside  of  every 
vessel,  can  or  package  from  which  any  such  milk  is  sold, 
the  words  '  'Skimmed  milK "  are  distinctly  painted  in  letters 
not  less  than  one  inch  in  length,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  or  Detroit  House  of  Correction  not  exceeding  three 
months. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 

73.  (C.  L.,  11423)  Sec.  12.  If  milk  sold  or  offered 
for  sale  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  as  pure  milk,  is 
shown  upon  analysis  by  weight  to  contain  more  than  eighty- 
seven  and  fifty  one  hundredths  per  centum  of  watery  fluid, 
or  to  contain  less  than  twelve  and  fifty  one  hundredths 

^  i  y  of  milk  solids,  per  centum,  or  less  fat  than  three  per  centum, 
/i^^  or  if  the  specific  gravity  at  60  degrees  Fahrenheit  is  n'ot 
between  1  29-1000  to  1  33-1000,  it  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
adulterated.  If  milk  sold  or  offered  for  sale  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act  as  skimmed  milk  has  a  specific  grav- 
ity at  60  degrees  Fahrenheit  less  than  1,032,  and  greater 
than  1,037,  it  shall  be  deemed  to  be  adulterated. 
{Added  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 

74.  (C.  L.,  11424)  Sec.  13.  Whenever  any  inspector 
of  milk  has  reason  to  beUeve  that  any  milk  found  by  him 
is  adulterated,  he  shall  take  specimens  thereof  and  test 
the  same  with  such  instrument  or  instruments  as  are  used 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  37 

for  such  purposes,  and  he  shall  make  an  analysis  thereof, 
showing  total  solids,  the  percentage  of  butter,  the  per- 
centage of  water  and  the  percentage  of  ash;  and  if  the  result 
of  such  test  and  analysis  indicates  that  the  milk  has  been 
adulterated  or  deprived  of  its  cream  or  any  part  thereof, 
the  same  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  such  adulter- 
ation in  a  prosecution  under  this  act. 
[Added  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 

75.  (C.  L.,  11425)  Sec.  14.  Any  person  who  shall 
remove  the  crealn  or  any  part  thereof  from  milk  to  be  sold 
as  pure  milk  to  any  manufactory  in  which  milk  is  used 
as  a  material  in  the  process  of  production,  and  any  person 
who  shall,  in  any  manner,  adulterate  such  milk,  either  by 
the  addition  of  water  or  otherwise,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, and  shall,  for  every  such  offense,  be  punished 
by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  county  jail  or  Detroit  House  of  Correction 
not  exceeding  ninety  days. 

[Added  by  Act  No.  219,  P.  A.  1889.] 


AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  sale  and  delivery  of  milk. 
(Act  No.  106,  Public  Acts,  1899.) 

76.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  No  person  shall  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell,  ex- 
change or  deliver,  or  have  in  his  possession  with  intent 
to  sell,  exchange  or  deliver,  any  milk  to  which  water,  chem- 
icals or  preservatives,  or  any  other  foreign  substance  has 
been  added.  The  term  milk  as  used  in  this  act  shall  in- 
clude all  skimmed  milk,  butter  milk,  cream  and  milk  in 
its  natural  state  as  drawn  from  the  cow. 

77.  Sec.  2.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of  the  act  or  things 
prohibited,  or  neglects  or  refuses  to  do  any  of  the  acts  or 
things  enjoined  by  this  act,  or  in  any  way  violates  any 
of  its  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  dollar 


38  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  and  the  costs  of  pros- 
ecution, or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  more 
than  ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment, 
in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

This  act  is  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect. 


OLEOMARGARINE. 

AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  or 
imitation  butter. 

(Act  No.  147,  Public  Acts,  1899.) 

78.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  No  person  shall  sell,  expose  or  offer  for  sale  or  ex- 
change, or  have  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell  or  ex- 
change, any  oleomargarine  or  other  substance  made  in 
imitation  of  butter,  and  which  is  intended  to  be  used  as 
a  substitute  for  butter,  unless  each  and  every  vessel,  pack- 
age, roll  or  parcel  of  such  substance  has  distinctly  and 
durably  printed,  stamped  or  stenciled  thereon  in  black 
letters  the  true  name  of  such  substance,  in  ordinary  bold 
faced  capital  letters,  not  less  than  five  line  pica  in  size; 
and  also  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer,  to- 
gether with  the  name  of  each  and  every  article  or  ingredient 
used  or  entering  into  the  composition  of  such  substance, 
in  ordinary  bold  faced  letters,  not  less  than  pica  in  size. 

79.  Sec.  2.  No  person  shall  sell  exchange  or  deliver 
any  oleomargarine  or  other  substance  made  in  imitation 
of  butter,  and  which  is  intended  to  be  used  as  a  substitute 
for  butter,  unless  he  shall  distinctly  inform  the  purchaser 
by  a  verbal  notice  at  the  time  of  the  sale  that  the  same 
is  a  substitute  for  butter,  and  shall  also  deliver  to  the  pur- 
chaser of  each  and  every  roll,  package  or  parcel  of  such 

^oleomargarine  or  other  substance,  at  the  time  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  sanie,  a  separate  and  distinct  label,  on  which 
is  plainly  and  legibly  printed  in  black  ink  in  ordinary  bold 
faced  capital  letters  not  less  than  five  line  pica  in  size,  the 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  39 

true  name  of  such  substance  and  also  the  name  and  address 
of  the  manufacturer,  together  with  the  name  of  each  ar- 
ticle used  and  entering  into  the  composition  of  such  sub- 
stance, in  ordinary  bold  faced  letters  not  less  than  pica 
in  size. 

80.  Sec.  3.  The  proprietor  or  keeper  of  any  store, 
hotel,  restaurant,  eating  saloon,  boarding  house,  or  other 
place  where  oleomargarine  is  sold  or  furnished  to  persons 
paying  for  the  same,  shall  have  placed  on  the  walls  of  every 
store  or  room  where  oleomargarine  is  sold  or  furnished, 
a  white  placard  on  which  is  printed  in  black  ink,  in  plain 
Roman  letters  of  not  less  than  three  inches  in  length,  and 
not  less  than  two  inches  in  width,  the  words  "Oleomar- 
garine Sold  or  Used  Here,"  and  shall  at  all  times  keep  the 
same  exposed  in  such  conspicuous  place  as  to  be  readily 
seen  by  any  and  all  persons  entering  such  store,  or  other 
room  or  rooms. 

81.  Sec.  4.  No  person  shall  use  in  any  way,  in  con- 
nection or  association  with  the  sale  or  exposure  for  sale 
or  advertisement  of  any  substance  designed  to  be  used 
as  a  substitute  for  butter,  thew^M  "butter,"  "creamery," 
or  "dairy,"  or  the  name  or  representation  of  any  breed 
of  dairy  cattle,  or  any  combination  of  such  word  or  words 
and  representation,  or  any  other  words  or  symbols  or  com- 
binations thereof  commonly  used  in  the  sale  of  butter. 

82.  Sec.  5.  For  the  purpose  of  this  act  the  word  '^but- 
ter" shall  be  understood  to  mean  the  food  product  usually 
known  as  butter,  and  which  is  made  exclusively  from  milk 
or  cream,  or  both,  with  or  without  common  salt,  and  with 
or  without  additional  coloring  matter. 

83.  Sec.  6.  For  the  purposes  of  this  act  certain  manu- 
factured substances,  certain  extracts,  and  certain  mix- 
tures and  compounds,  including  such  mixtures  and  com- 
pounds with  butter,  shall  be  known  and  designated  as 
^'oleomargarine,"  namely:  All  substances  heretofore 
known  as  oleomargarine,  oleo,  oleomargarine  oil,  butter- 
ine,  lardine,  suine  and  neutral;  all  mixtures  and  compounds 
of  oleomargarine,  oleo,  oleomargarine  oil,  butterine,  lard- 
ine, suine  and  neutral ;  all  lard  extracts  and  tallow  extracts ; 
and  all  mixtures  and  compounds  of  tallow,  beef  fat,  suet, 


40  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

lard,  lard  oid,  vegetable  oil,  butterine,  lardine,  suine  and 
neutral;  all  lard  extracts  and  tallow  extracts;  and  all  mix^ 
tures  and  compounds  of  tallow,  beef  fat,  suet,  lard,  lard 
oil,  vegetable  oil,  intestinal  fat,  and  offal  fat,  made  in  im~ 
itation  or  semblance  of  butter,  or  when  so  made,  calculated 
or  intended  to  be  sold  or  used  as  butter  or  for  butter. 

84.  Sec.  7.  Whoever  violates  any  of  the  provisions  of 
this  act  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon 
conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  les& 
than  fifty  dollars,  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  and 
the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  or  State  House  of  Correction  and  Reformatory  at  Ionia,, 
for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than  three  years,. 
or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court,  in  each  and  every  offense.  All  acts  or  parts- 
of  acts  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  are  hereby 
repealed. 

This  act  is  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect. 


AN  ACT  to  prevent  deception  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  imita- 

tion  butter. 

(Act  No.  22,  Public  Acts,  1901.) 

85.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  No  person,  by  himself  or  his  agents,  or  servants, 
shall  render  or  manufacture,  sell,  offer  for  sale,  expose- 
for  sale,  or  have  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell,  any 
article,  product  or  -compound  made  wholly  or  in  part  out 
of  any  fat,  oil  or  oleaginous  substance  or  compound  there- 
of, not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from 
the  same,  which  shall  be  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  pro- 
duced from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same: 
Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  ta 
prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a. 
separate  and  distinct  form,  and  in  such  manner  as  will  ad- 
vise the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from  colora- 
tion or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  41 

86.  Sec.  2.  Whoever  violates  any  of  the  provisions 
of  section  one  of  this  act  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, and  upon  conviction  thereof,  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  dollars  nor  more  than  five 
hundred  dollars,  and  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  county  jail  or  State  House  of  Correction 
and  Reformatory  at  Ionia  for  not  less  than  six  months 
nor  more  than  three  years,-  or  by  both  such  fine  and  im« 
prisonment  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  for  each  and  every 
offense. 


RENOVATED  BUTTER. 

AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  renovated  butter. 
(Act  No.  243,  Public  Acts,  1903.) 

87.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  No  person,  firm  or  corporation  shall  manufacture 
for  sale,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell,  exchange  or  deliver, 
or  have  in  his  possession  with  the  intent  to  sell,  exchange 
or  deliver,  any  butter  that  is  produced  by  taking  original 
packing  stock  butter  or  other  butter,  or  both,  melting  the 
same  so  that  the  butter  fat  can  be  drawn  off  or  extracted,, 
mixing  the  said  butter  fat  with  skimmed  milk,  or  milk 
or  cream,  or  other  milk  product,  and  rechurning  or  re- 
working the  said  mixture;  nor  shall  any  person,  firm  or 
corporation  manufacture  for  sale,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,, 
sell,  exchange  or  deliver,  or  have  in  his  possession  for  any 
such  purpose  any  butter  which  has  been  subjected  to  any 
process  by  which  it  is  melted,  clarified  or  refined,  and  made 
to  resemble  butter,  and  is  commonly  known  as  boiled, 
process  or  renovated  butter,  and  which  for  the  purpose 
of  this  act  is  hereby  designated  as  '^Renovated  Butter," 
unless  the  same  shall  be  branded  or  marked  as  provided 
in  section  two  of  this  act. 

88.  Sec.  2.  Whoever,  himself  or  by  his  agent,  or  a& 
the  servant  or  agent  of  another  person  shall  sell,  expose 


42  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


for  sale  or  have  in  his  custody  or  possession  with  the  intent 
to  sell  any  ^'Renovated  Butter/^  as  defined  in  section  one 
of  this  act,  shall  have  the  words  '  'Renovated  Butter' '  con- 
spicuously stamped,  labeled  or  marked  in  one  or  two  lines 
and  in  plain  gothic  letters,  at  least  three-eighths  of  an  inch 
square,  so  that  the  words  cannot  be  easily  defaced,  upon 
two  sides  of  each  and  every  tub,  firkin,  box  or  package 
<3ontaining  said  ' 'Renovated  Butter;''  or,  if  such  butter 
is  exposed  for  sale  uncovered,  or  not  in  a  case  or  package, 
a  placard  containing  said  words  in  the  same  form  as  above 
described  in  this  section  shall  be  attached  to  the  mass  in 
siich  a  manner  as  to  be  easily  seen  and  read  by  the  purchas- 
er. When  ''Renovated  Butter"  is  sold  from  such  pack- 
age or  otherwise  at  retail,  in  print,  roll  or  other  form,  before 
being  delivered  to  the  purchaser,  it  shall  be  wrapped  in 
wrappers  plainly  stamped  on  the  outside  thereof  with 
the  words  "Renovated  Butter"  printed  or  stamped  there- 
on in  one  or  two  lines,  and  in  plain  gothic  letters  at  least 
three-eighths  of  an  inch  square,  and  such  wrapper  shall 
contain  no  other  words  or  printing  thereon,  and  said  words 
"Renovated  Butter"  so  stamped  or  printed  on  the  said 
wrapper  shall  not  be  in  any  manner  concealed,  but  shall 
be  in  plain  view  of  the  purchaser  at  the  time  of  the  purchase. 

89.  Sec.  3.  Whoever  shall  violate  any  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor 
and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine 
of  not  less  than  twenty-five  dollars  nor  more  than  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  and  the  costs  of  prosecution,  or  by  imprison- 
ment in  the  county  jail  or  Michigan  Reformatory  at  Ionia, 
for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than  three  years, 
or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment,  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court,  for  each  and  every  offense. 

90.  Sec.  4.  Act  number  two  hundred  fifty-four  of 
the  public  acts  of  eighteen  hundred  ninety-nine,  entitled 
'  'An  act  to  regulate  the  sale  of  butter  produced  by  taking 
original  packing  stock  and  other  butter  and  melting  the 
same  so  that  the  butter  oil  can  be  drawn  off,  mixed  with 
skimmed  milk  or  other  material,  and  by  emulsion  or  other 
process  produce  butter,  and  butter  produced  by  any  simi- 
lar process  and    commonly    known  as  "process"  butter; 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  43 

providing   for   the   enforcement   thereof,    and   punishment 
for  the  violation  of  the  same/ '  is  hereby  repealed. 


CANDY. 


AN  ACT  to  prevent  the  adulteration  of  candies  and  confectioneries 
and  the  sale  thereof,  when  so  adulturated  as  to  be  injurious  to  the 
public  health. 

(Act  No.  11,  PubHc  Acts,  1887.) 

91.  (C.  L.,  11409)  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State 
■of  Michigan  enact,  That  any  person  or  persons  manufac- 
turing for  sale  or  knowingly  selling  or  offering  to  sell  any 
candies  or  confectioneries  adulterated  by  the  admixture 
of  terra  alba,  barytes,  talc  or  otli^r  earthy  or  mineral  sub- 
stances, or  any  poisonous  colors,  flavors  or  extracts,  or 
other  deleterious  ingredients  detrimental  to  health,  shall 
upon  proper  conviction  thereof,  before  a  court  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction,  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  less  than 
ten  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  imprisonment 
in  the  county  j.ail  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  thirty 
days,  or  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court. 

92.  (C.  L.,  11410)  Sec.  2.  It  is  hereby  made  the 
duty  of  the  local  health  officer  or  local  board  of  health  hav- 
ing jurisdiction  thereof  to  investigate  without  unnecessary 
delay  all  complaints  that  may  be  properly  brought  before 
them  and  containing  the  facts  as  supported  by  affidavit 
of  the  parties  complaining  of  the  adulteration  or  sale  of 
adulterated  candies  or  confectioneries,  and  if  after  inves- 
tigation by  such  officer  or  board  reasonable  cause  for  action 
is  found  to  exist,  then  such  officer  or  board  shall  at  once 
^ive  notice  to  the  prosecuting  attorney  of  the  county  in 
which  such  complaint  is  made,  and  make  or  cause  to  be 
made,  before  a  proper  officer,  a  formal  complaint  in  writing 
and  duly  verified,  and  thereupon  said  prosecuting  attor- 
ney shall  immediately  commence  proceedings  against  the 
person  or  persons  so  offending. 


44  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


LIQUORS. 

AN  ACT  for  the  regulation  of,   manufacture   and  sale   of  spirituous 
and  intoxicating  liquors.  , 

(Extract  from  Act  No.  313,  Public  Acts,  1887.) 

93.  (C.  L.,  5403)  Sec.  25.  If  any  person  shall  adul- 
terate any  spirituous,  or  alcoholic  liquors  used  or  intended 
for  drink,  uy  mixing  the  same  in  the  manufacture  or  pre- 
paration thereof,  or  by  process  of  rectifying,  or  gtherwise,. 
with .  any  deleterious  drug,  substance,  or  liquid,  which  is 
poisonous  or  injurious  to  health,  except  as  hereinafter 
provided,  or  if  any  person  shall  sell,  or  offer  to  sell,  any 
wine,  or  spirituous,  or  alcoholic  liquors,  or  shall  import 
into  this  State,  any  wine,  or  spirituous,  or  intoxicating 
liquors  and  sell,  or  offer  for  sale  such  liquors,  knowing  the- 
same  to  be  adulterated,  or  shall  sell,  or  offer  to  sell,  any 
spirituous  or  intoxicating  liquors  from  any  barrel,  cask,, 
or  other  vessel  containing  the  same,  and  not  branded  as 
hereinafter  provided,  he  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  mis- 
demeanor, and  upon  conviction  thereof,  shall  be  pun- 
ished by  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars,  nor  less 
than  fifty  dollars,  and  shall  be  imprisoned  in  the  jail  of 
the  county  not  more  than  six  months,  nor  less  than  ten 
days. 

94.  (C.  L.,  5404)  Sec.  26.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
every  person  or  persons,  engaged  in  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  malt,  spirituous,  or  alcoholic  liquors,  or  in  rectify- 
ing or  preparing  the  same  in  any  way,  to  brand  on  each 
barrel,  cask,  or  other  vessel  containing  the  same,  the  name 
or  names  of  the  person,  company,  or  firm  manufacturing,, 
rectifying  or  preparing  the  same,  and  also  these  words,. 
*'  Ture  and  without  drugs  or  poison.' ' 

95.  (C.  L.,  5405)  Sec.  27.  No  person  shall  sell  at 
wholesale  or  retail,  any  ale,  rum,  wine  or  other  malt  or 
spirituous  liquors  from  any  barrel,  cask,  or  vessel,  unless 
the  same  shall  have  been  branded  and  marked  as  aforesaid. 

96.  (C.  L.,  5406)     Sec.  28.     If  any  barrel,  cask  or  other 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  45 

vessel  containing  any  drugged  or  poisoned  liquor  shall  be 
found  in  the  possession  of  any  wholesale  or  retail  dealer 
in  liquors,  or  in  the  possession  of  any  person  holding  himself 
out  as  such  a  dealer,  it  shall  be  deemed  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

97.  (C.  L.,  5407)  Sec.  29.  Any  person  who  shall 
put  into  any  barrel,  cask,  or  other  vessel,  branded  or  marked 
-as  required  by  this  act,  any  liquors  drugged  or  adulterated 
as  aforesaid,  or  who  shall  sell  or-  offer  for  sale  any  such 
liquors,  for  the  purpose  and  with  the  intent  of  deceiving 
any  person  in  the  sale  thereof,  or  shall  violate -any  of  the 
provisions  of  sections  twenty-six,  twenty-seven,  or  twenty- 
€ight,  of  this  act,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  as  pro- 
vided in  section  twenty-five  of  this  act. 

98.  (C.  L.,  5408)  Sec.  30.  The  provisions  of  this 
act  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  prevent  druggists,  physi- 
cians, and  persons  engaged  in  the  mechanical  arts  from 
compounding  liquors  for  medicinal  and  mechanical 
purposes. 


PEPPER. 


AN  ACT  to  provide  for  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  black  pepper  in 
this  State  and  to  provide  a  penalty  for  the  violation  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act. 

(Act  No.  180,  Public'Acts,  1901.) 

99.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan 
enact,  Within  this  State  no  person,  firm  or  corporation 
shall  manufacture,  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  keep  in  pos- 
session with  intent  to  sell,  or  sell  any  ground  or  whole  black 
pepper  containing  any  foreign  substance  whatever.  All 
black  pepper  shall  contain  not  more  than  six  and  one- 
haK  per  cent  ash  or  mineral  matter ;  and  shall  contain  not  less 
than  twenty-five  per  cent  starch  as  determined  by  the 
diastase  method;  and  shall  contain  not  less  than  six-tenths 


46  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


of  one  per  cent  nor  more  than  one  and  three-fourths  per 
cent  of  volatile  ether  extract;  and  shall  contain  not  more 
than  ten  per  cent  nor  less  than  six  and  one-half  per  cent 
of  non- volatile  ether  extract;  and  shall  contain  not  more 
than  sixteen  per  cent  of  crude  fibre. 

100.  Sec.  2.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of  the  acts  or 
things  prohibited,  or  neglects  or  refuses  to  do  any  of  the 
acts  or  things  enjoined  by  this  act,  or  in  any  way  violates 
any  of  its  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  less  than  twenty- 
five  dollars  nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars  and  the  costs 
of  the  prosecution,  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not 
more  than  ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprison- 
ment, in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 


CORN   SYRUP. 

AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  sale  of  corn  syrup. 

(Act  No.  123,  Public  Acts,  1903.) 

101.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan- 
enact,  No  person  shall  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  have  in  hi& 
possession  with  intent  to  sell,  or  sell,  any  cane  syrup,  beet 
syrup,  or  glucose,  unless  the  barrel,  cask,  keg,  can,  pail  or 
package  containing  the  same  be  distinctly  branded  or 
labeled  with  the  true  and  appropriate  name;  nor  shall  any 
person  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  have  in  his  possession  with 
intent  to  sell,  or  sell  any  cane  syrup  or  beet  syrup  mixed 
with  glucose  unless  the  barrel,  cask,  keg,  can,  pail  or  pack- 
age containing  the  same  be  distinctly  branded  or  labeled 
* 'Glucose  Mixture' '  or  ''Corn  Syrup"  in  plain  gothic  type 
not  less  than  three-eighths  of  an  inch  square,  with  the 
name  and  percentage  by  weight  of  each  ingredient  contained 
therein  plainly  stamped,  branded  or  stenciled  on  each 
package  in  plain  Gothic  letters  not  less  than  one-quarter 
of  an  inch  square.  Each  and  every  package  of  syrup  either 
simple  or  mixed  shall  bear  the  name  and  address  of  the 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  47 

manufacturer.  Such  mixtures  or  syrups  shall  have  no 
other  designation  or  brand  than  herein  required  that  repre- 
sents or  is  the  name  of  any  article  which  contains  a  sac- 
charine substance;  and  all  brands  or  labels  required  shall 
be  an  inseparable  part  of  the  general  or  distinguishing  label, 
and  that  the  general  or  distinguishing  label  shall  be  that 
principal  and  conspicuous  sign  under  which  it  is  sold. 

102.  Sec.  2.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of  the  acts  or  things 
prohibited,  or  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  any  of  the  acts  or 
things  required  by  this  act,  or  in  any  way  violate  any  of 
the  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  less  than  twenty-five 
dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  impris- 
onment in  the  county  jail  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  thir- 
ty nor  more  than  ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and 
imprisonment  in  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

This  act  is  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect. 


PRESERVATIVES. 

AN  ACT  in  relation  to  the  use  of  preservatives  in  food  products. 

(Act  No.  13,  Public  Acts,  1905.) 

103.  Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan  enacts 
No  person,  firm  or  corporation  shall  manufacture,  sell, 
offer  for  sale,  expose  for  sale,  or  have  in  his  possession  with 
intent  to  sell,  any  food  product  containing  benzoic  acid 
or  benzoate  of  sodium,  or  any  other  harmless  preservative, 
unless  each  and  every  package  containing  the  same  shall, 
in  the  condition  in  which  it  is  exposed  for  sale,  be  distinct- 
ly, conspicuously,  and  legibly  branded,  labeled  or  marked, 
in  plain  English  letters,  with  the  words  '  Trepared  with' ' 
followed  by  the  proper  English  name  of  the  preservative 
used:  Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  prohibit  or  regulate,  by  branding  or  otherwise, 
the  use  as  a  preservative  of  common  salt,  syrup,  sugar, 
salt    petre,   spices,  alcohol,  vinegar  or  wood  smoke:     And 


48  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

Provided  Further,  That  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall 
not  apply  to  dairy  products. 

104.  Sec.  2.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of  the  acts  or 
things  prohibited,  or  neglect  or  refuse  to  do  any  of  the  acts 
or  things  required  by  this  act,  or  in  any  way  violate  any 
of  its  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  less  than  ten  dollars 
nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment 
in  the  county  jail  for  a  period  of  not  more  than  ninety  days, 
or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion 
of  the  #  court. 

This  act  is  ordered  to  take  immediate  effect. 


MICHIGAN  SUPREME  COURT 

DECISIONS  RELATIVE  TO  DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS 


PEOPLE  V.  SNOWBERGER. 

(Opinion  filed  May  25,  1897.) 

Adulteration  of  Food — Statutory  Offenses — Intent — Police  Power. 

1.  It  is  competent  for  the  legislature  under  the  police  power,  to  pro- 
vide for  the  protection  of  the  public  health  by  making  it  an  of- 
fense punishable  by  fine  and  imprisonment  to  sell  adulterated 
food  or  drink,  irrespective  of  the  seller's  knowledge  of  the  adul- 
teration. 

12.  Act  No.  193,  Public  Acts  1895,  prohibits  the  manufacture  or  sale 
of  adulterated  articles  of  food  or  drink,  and  prescibes  what  shall 
be  deemed  adulteration  within  the  meaning  of  the.  act.  Section 
8  forbids  any  person  from  knowingly  offering  for  sale  cheese  which 
is  falsely  labeled;  this  being  the  only  case  in  which  knowledge 
is  expressly  made  an  element  of  an  offense  designated  by  such 
statute.  Held,  that  proof  of  guilty  knowledge  or  intent  is  not 
essential  to^^the  conviction  of  one  who  sells  adulterated  food. 

(113  Mich.  86.) 

Exceptions  before  judgment  from  Monroe;  Kinne,  J. 

Michael  Snowberger  was  convicted  of  selling  adulterated  food,  in 
violation  of  act  No.  193,  PubUc  Acts  of  1895. 
Conviction  affirmed. 

William  Look  and  Ira  G.  Humphrey,  for  appellant. 

Bowen,  Douglas  &  Whiting,  of  counsel. 

Willis  Baldwin,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  for  the  people 

7 


50  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

Long,  C.  J.:  Respondent  was  convicted  under  an  information 
charging  that:  ''On  the  19th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1897,  at  the  city 
of  Monroe,  and  in  the  county  aforesaid,  Michael  Snowberger  did  offer 
for  sale,  and  sell,  to  Carl  Franke,  an  adulterated  article  of  food,  to- 
wit:  A  quantity  of  mustard,  to  wit,  a  quarter  of  a  pound,  colored 
and  adulterated  with  turmeric,  whereby  the  said  mustard,  as  an  ar- 
ticle of  food,  was  damaged  and  its  inferiority  concealed  and  whereby 
it  was  made  to  appear  of  better  and  of  greater  value  than  it  really 
was,  the  same  not  being  a  mixture  or  compound  recognized  as  ordi- 
nary articles  or  ingredients  of  articles  of  food;  contrary  to  the  form 
of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided,' '  etc. 

The  information  was  filed  under  act  No.  193,  Public  Acts  1895, 
entitled  "An  act  to  prohibit  and  prevent  adulteration,  fraud  and 
deception  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  articles  of  food  and  drink."" 
The  act  provides: 

Section  1.  "No  person  shall  within  this  State  manufacture  for 
sale,  offer  for  sale,  or  sell  any  article  of  food  which  is  adulterated  with- 
in the  meaning  of  this  act." 

Section  2.  "The  term  food  as  used  herein,  shall  include  all  articles^ 
used  for  food  or  drink,  or  intended  to  be  eaten  or  drunk  by  man, 
whether  simple,  mixed  or  compound." 

Section. 3.  "An  article  shall  be  deemed  to  be  adulterated  within 
the  meaning  of  this  act:  One,  If  any  substance  or  substances  have 
been  mixed  with  it  so  as  to  lower  or  depreciate  or  injuriously  affect- 
its  quality,  strength  or  purity;  Two,  If  any  inferior  or  cheaper  sub- 
stance or  substances  have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in  part  for  it; 
Three,  If  any  valuable  or  necessary  constituent  or  ingredient  has 
been  wholly  or  in  part  abstracted  from  it;  Four,  If  it  is  sold  under 
the  name  of  another  article;  Five,  If  it  consists  wholly  or  in  part  of 
a  diseased,  decomposed,  putrid,  infected,  tainted  or  rotten  animal 
or  vegetable  substance  or  article,  whether  manufactured  or  not,  or 
in  case  of  milk,  if  it  is  the  product  of  a  diseased  animal;  Six,  If  it  is- 
colored,  coated,  polished  or  powdered,  whereby  damage  or  inferiority 
is  concealed,  or  if  by  any  means  it  is  made  to  appear  better  or  of  great- 
er value  than  it  really  is;  Seven,  It  it  contains  an  added  substance  or 
ingredient  which  is  poisonous  or  injurious  to  health:  Provided,  That 
the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  mixtures  or  compounds 
recognized  as  ordinary  articles  or  ingredients  of  articles  of  food,  if 
each  and  every  package  sold  or  offered  for  sale  be  distinctly  labeled 
as  mixtures  or  compounds,  and  are  not  injurious  to  health." 

Section  19  makes  any  violation  of  the  act  a  misdemeanor  and  pro- 
vides a  penalty  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $500^ 
or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  etc. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  51 

On  the  trial  respondent  admitted,  that  on  the  19th  day  of  April, 
1897,  he,  at  the  city  of  Monroe,  this  State,  offered  for  sale  and  did 
sell  to  Carl  Franke  a  quantity  of  mustard,  to  wit,  a  quarter  of  a  pound 
which  was  afterwards  found  upon  a  chemical  examination  to  be  col- 
ored and  adulterated  with  turmeric,  whereby  the  said  mustard  as  an 
article  of  food  was  damaged  and  its  inferiority  concealed,  and  it  was 
thereby  made  to  appear  of  greater  and  better  value  than  it  really 
was;  the  same  not  being  a  mixture  or  compound  recognized  as  an 
ordinary  article  or  ingredient  of  articles  of  food. 

But  he  claimed  that  said  article  of  mustard,  so  sold  was  purchased 
by  him  as  a  pure  article  in  good  faith,  and  that  he  believed  at  the  time 
of  the  purchase  by  him  and  also  at  the  time  of  the  sale  to  the  said 
Franke,  that  the  same  was  pure  mustard,  free  from  any  coloring  and 
adulteration  with  turmeric  or  any  other  coloring  or  adulterant,  and 
that  no  inferiority  was  concealed  whereby  it  was  made  to  appear  of 
greater  or  better  value  than  it  really  was;  that  at  the  time  he  pur- 
chased the  same  he  asked  for  pure  mustard  and  that  the  same  was 
warranted  to  him  as  pure;  that  he  did  not  make  or  cause  to  have  made 
a  chemical  examination  of  the  same  and  did  not  ^inform 
himself  or  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  methods  of  determining  pure 
from  impure  mustards,  but  relied  upon  the  representations  of  his 
vender  and  the  appearance  of  the  article  to  the  eye;  and  that  he  did 
not  intend  to  violate  the  law. 

From   such   conviction   respondent   appeals. 

It  is  the  contention  of  counsel  for  respondent  that  it  was  the  intent 
of  the  legislature  to  provide  by  the  act  that  no  person  should  be  con- 
victed and  punished  for  selling  adulterated  food  or  drink  without 
showing  that  he  knew  the  same  to  be  adulterated;  that  the  informa- 
tion does  not  charge  such  knowledge,  and  the  proofs  disclose  that 
respondent  acted  in  good  faith  and  in  the  belief  that  the  article  sold 
was  pure  and  unadulterated. 

The  act  cannot  be  so  construed.  The  offense  under  the  act  consists 
in  selling  an  article  intended  to  be  eaten  or  drunk  which  is  adulter- 
ated. Section  8  of  the  act  shows  conclusively  that  the  legislature 
did  not  intend  to  make  criminal  intent  or  guilty  knowledge  a  neces- 
sary ingredient  of  the  offense.  As  a  rule  there  can  be  no  crime  with- 
out a  criminal  intent;  but  this  rule  is  not  universal. 

In  People  v.  Roby,  52  Mich.  577,  (50  Am.  Rep.  270),  the  respondent 
was  convicted  of  the  offense  under  the  statute  of  keeping  his  saloon 
open  on  Sunday.     It  was  there  said;      "It  is  contended  that  to  con- 


52  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


stitute  an  offense  under  the  section  referred  to  (How.  Stat.,  Sec.  2274), 
there  must  be  some  evidence  tending  to  show  an  intent  on  the  part 
of  the  respondent  to  violate  it.  *  *  *  The  section  under  which 
Roby  is  prosecuted  makes  the  crime  consist,  not  in  the  affirmative 
act  of  any  person,  but  in  the  negative  conduct  of  faiUng  to  keep  the 
saloon  closed.  As  a  rule  there  can  be  no  crime  without  a  criminal 
intent;  but  this  is  not  by  any  means  a  universal  rule.  One  may  be 
guilty  of  the  high  crime  of  manslaughter  when  his  only  fault  is  gross 
negligence,  and  there  are  many  other  cases  where  mere  neglect  may 
be  highly  criminal.  Many  statutes  which  are  in  the  nature  of  police 
regulations,  as  this  is,  impose  criminal  penalties  irrespective  of  any 
intent  to  violate  them;  the  purpose  being  to  require  a  degree  of  dili- 
gence for  the  protection  of  the  public  which  shall  render  violation 
impossible. " 

Many  cases  are  cited  in  that  case  where  convictions  were  sustained 
although  the  element  of  guilty  knowledge  was  lacking.  Thus  in 
Massachusetts  a  person  may  be  convicted  of  the  crime  of  selling  in- 
toxicating liquors  as  a  beverage  though  he  did  not  know  it  to  be  in- 
toxic^ing. 

Com.  V.  Boynton,  2  Allen,  160. 

And  of  the  offense  of  selling  adulterated  milk,  though  ignorant  of 
its  adulteration. 

Com.  V.  Farren,  9  Allen,  489. 
Com.  V.  Nichols,  10  Allen  199. 
Com.  V.  Waite,  11  Allen,  264. 
Com.  V  .^  Smith,  103  Mass.,  444. 

In  Missouri  a  magistrate  may  be  liable  to  the  penalty  for  perform- 
ing the  marriage  ceremony  for  minors  without  consent  of  parents  or 
guardians,  though  he  may  suppose  them  to  be  of  the  proper  age. 

Beckham  v.  Nacke,  56  Mo.,  546. 

Where  the  killing  and  sale  of  a  calf  under  a  specified  age  is  pro- 
hibited there  may  be  a  conviction  though  the  party  was  ignorant  of 
the  animal's  age. 

Com.  V.  Raymond,  97  Mass.,  567. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  53 

In  People  v.  Welsh,  71  Mich.  548,  this  court  in  speaking  of  People 
V.  Roby,  supra,  said:  ''When  a  statute  does  not  make  intent  an 
element  of  the  offense,  but  commands  an  act  to  be  done  or  omitted 
which  in  the  absence  of  the  statute  might  have  been  done  or  omitted 
without  culpability,  ignorance  of  the  fact  or  state  of  things  contem- 
plated by  the  statute  will  not  excuse  its  violation;"  citing:     . 

State  V.  Hartfiel,  24  Wis.,  60. 

In  the  late  case  in  this  court  of  Walcott  v.  Judge  of  Superior  court, 
112  Mich.  311,  the  relator,  as  prosecuting  attorney  of  the  county,  filed 
an  information  against  one  Fred  Saunders,  charging  him  with  being 
engaged  in  selling  liquor  without  giving  the  bond  required  by  the 
statute.  The  bond  was  fair  upon  its  face,  but  one  of  the  sureties,  it 
appears,  was  disqualified  under  section  2283dl,  3  How.  Stat.  The 
information  did  not  allege  that  respondent  had  knowledge  of  this 
defect  in  the  bond.  The  information  was  quashed  by  the  court  be- 
low, and  the  relator  asked  the  aid  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  respond- 
ent to  reinstate  the  case.  It  was  said  by  this  court  in  the  majority 
opinion:  *'It  was  the  intention  of  the  legislature  to  make  the  ex- 
ecution and  delivery  of  the  prescribed  bond  a  condition  precedent 
to  sale,  and  ta  require  the  person  desiring  to  engage  in  the  business 
mentioned  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  knowing  that  the  bond 
when  presented  complies  in  all  essential  particulars  with  the  law. 
He  must  know  that  his  sureties  are  males,  that  they  are  resident 
freeholders  of  the  township,  village  or  city  in  which  the  business  is 
to  be  carried  on,  that  they  hold  none  of  the  offices  prohibited  by  thet 
act,  and  that  at  the  time  the  bond  is  filed  neither  is  a  surety  upon 
more  than  two  bonds  required  by  the  act." 

It  appeared  that  one  of  the  sureties  was  already  upon  more  than 
two  bonds;  and  the  writ  was  granted  compelling  the  respondent  to 
reinstate  the  case.  The  case  of  People  v.  Roby  was  cited  in  that 
case  in  support  of  the  proposition  that  intent  was  not  an  ingredient 
of  the  offense. 

These  regulations  are  under  the  poHce  power  of  the  State.  Un- 
doubtedly it  was  competent  for  the  legislature  to  prohibit  the  sale 
of  adulterated 'articles  of  food  and  drink.  The  police  power  of  the 
State  extends  to  the  protection  of  the  health  as  well  as  of  the  lives 
and  property  of  the  citizens.  Generally  it  is  for  the  legislature  to 
determine  what  laws  and  regulations  are  needed  to  protect  the  pub- 
lic health  and  secure  the  public    comfort    and  safety.     If  it  passes  an 


54  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


act  ostensibly  for  the  public  health  and  thereby  destroys  or  takes 
away  the  property  of  the  citizen  or  interferes  with  his  liberty  it  is 
for  the  courts  to  determine  whether  it  relates  to  and  is  appropriate 
to  promote  such  public  health.  Under  the  police  power  the  conduct 
of  individuals  and  the  use  of  property  may  be  regulated  so  as  to  in- 
terfere to  some  extent  with  the  freedom  of  the  one  and  the  enjoyment 
of  the  other.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  legislature  intended 
by  this  act  to  protect  the  public  against  the  harmful  consequences 
of  sales  of  adulterated  food,  and  to  the  end  that  its  purpose  might 
not  be  defeated  to  require  the  seller  at  his  peril  to  know  that  the  article 
which  he  offers  for  sale  is  not  adulterated. 

As  was  said  by  the  supreme  court  of  Ohio,  in  State  v.  Kelly,  54 
Ohio  St.  166:  ''If  this  statute  had  imposed  upon  the  State  the  bur- 
den of  proving  *  *  *  his  knowledge  of  its  adulteration,  it  would 
thereby  have  defeated  its  declared  purpose." 

In  State  v.  Smith,  10  R.  I.  260,  the  court,  in  speaking  of  the  offense 
of  seUing  adulterated  milk,  said:  "Counsel  for  defendant  asked  the 
court  to  charge  that  there  must  be  evidence  of  a  guilty  intent  on  the 
part  of  the  defendant  and  of  a  guilty  knowledge  in  order  to  convict 
him.  Our  statute  in  that  provision  of  it,  under  which  this  indict- 
meiit  was  found  does  not  essentially  differ  from  the  statute  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  there  previous  to  the  enactment  of  our  statute  the 
supreme  court  had  determined  that  a  person  might  be  convicted  al- 
though he  had  no  knowledge  of  the  adulteration;  the  intent  of  the 
legislature  being  that  the  seller  of  milk  should  take  upon  himself  the 
risk  of  knowing  that  the  article  he  offers  for  sale  is  not  adulterated." 

Statutes  in  many  states  have  been  passed  providing  that  whoever 
sells,  or  keeps  or  offers  for  sale  adulterated  milk,  or  milk  to  which 
water  or  other  foreign  substance  has  been  added  shall  be  punished, 
etc.  Under  these  statutes  it  has  been  decided  many  times  that  the 
risk  is  upon  the  seller  of  knowing  that  the  article  he  offers  for  sale 
is  not  adulterated,  and  that  it  is  not  necessary  in  an  indictment  under 
such  a  statute  to  allege  or  prove  criminal  intent  or  guilty  knowledge. 

Com.  V.  Smith,  103  Mass.,  444. 
Com.  V.  Warren,   160  Mass.,  533. 
People  V.  Clipperly,  101  N.  Y.,  634. 

The  same  rule  that  no  criminal  intent  is  necessary  has  been  held 
to  apply  under  an  act  forbidding  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  or  other 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  55 

imitations  of  dairy  products,  unless  express  notice  be  given  to  the 
purchaser. 

Bayles  v.  Newton,  50  N.  J.,  L.  549. 
Com.  V.  Gray,  150  Mass.,  327. 

The  English  rule  is  in  keeping  with  the  doctrine  in  this  country 
on  this  subject. 

Roberts  v.  Egerton,  L.  R.,  9  Q.  B.,  494. 

The  statute  not  requiring  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  seller  to 
make  the  offense  complete,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  conviction  must 
he  sustained.  No  case  has  been  cited,  and  we  are  not  able  to  find 
one,  where  a  contrary  doctrine  is  laid  down.  The  act  may  work 
hardship  in  many  cases;  but  that  question  is  one  to  be  addressed  to 
"the  legislature  and  not  to  the  courts.  As  we  have  said,  it  was  within 
the  power  of  the  legislature  to  pass  the  act  making  it  an  offense  pun- 
ishable with  fine  and  imprisonment  to  sell  adulterated  food  or 
drink,  although  the  person  selling  the  same  has  no  knowledge  that 
it  is  adulterated.  Under  this  statute  one  making  sales  must  do  so 
at  his  peril. 

The  conviction  is  affirmed. 

Grant,  J.,  did  not  sit.     The  other  justices  concurred. 


PEOPLE  V.  WORDEN  GROCER  CO. 

(Opinion  filed  December  6,  1898.) 

-Constitutional  Law — ^Act  to  Prevent  Sale  of  Adulterated  Vinegar — 
Complaint — Reasonableness  of  Statute — Defense. 

1.  The  title  to  an  act  reading  "An  act  in  relation  to  the  manufacture 

and  sale  of  vinegar,  and  to  repeal  Act  No.  224  of  the  Public  Acts 
of  1889,  approved,  etc.,"  held  broad  enough  to  support  an  en- 
actment to  prevent  deception  in  the  sale  of  vinegar  or  to  prevent 
adulteration  of  vinegar. 

2.  A  conviction  for  a  sale  of  "fermented  cider  vinegar"  which  was 
not  up  to  the  standard  prescribed  by  Act  No.  71,  Public  Acts 
of  1897,  may  be  had  under  a  complaint  drawn  under  section  2 
of  the  act. 


56  -  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


3.  ;The  question  as  to  whether  the  requirements  of  an  act  passed 

to  prevent  the  sale  of  adulterated  vinegar  are  such  as  to  render 
the  act  unreasonable,  cannot  be  determined  by  the  courts  and 
does  not  raise  a  question  of  fact  for  determination  by  a  jury. 

4.  Where  a  sample  of  vinegar  is  taken  from  a  dealer  for  the  purpose 

of  testing  it  to  see  if  it  conforms  to  the  standard  required  by  law 
it  is  not  necessary  that  a  sample  be  left  with  the  dealer. 

5.  A  prosecution  for  a  sale  of  vinegar  in  violation  of  Act  No.  71, 
Public  Acts  of  1897,  cannot  be  defended  on  the  ground  that  the 

Eerson  so  manufacturing  or  selling  vinegar  below  the  standard 
as  no  knowledge  that  it  is  not  within  the  standard  prescribed. 

Error  to  the  circuit  court  of  Kent  county;  Allen  C.  Adsit,  J. 

Appeal  of  the  Worden  Grocer  Co.  from  a  conviction  of  a  violation 
of  act  No.  71,  Public  Acts  of  1897.     Affirmed. 

Frank  A.  Rodgers,  Prosecuting  Attorney;  Benn  M.  Corwin,  As- 
sistant Prosecuting  Attorney,  for  the  people. 

Rood  &  Hindman,  for  respondent. 

Long,  J.:  The  complaint  in  this  cause  charges  that  the  defend^ 
ant:  "On  February  5,  1898,  did  unlawfully  sell  and  deliver  to  John- 
T.  Owens  of  Benton  Harbor,  Michigan,  a  large  quantity,  to  wit :  One 
barrel  of  vinegar  which  was  not  then  and  there  in  compliance  with 
the  provisions  of  act  No.  71,  Public  Acts,  1897,  in  this,  viz.:  That 
said  vinegar  was  sold  as  * 'fermented  cider  vinegar"  and  branded  a& 
such;  that  said  vinegar  contained  less  than  one  and  three-fourths  per 
cent  by  weight  upon  full  evaporation  (at  the  temperature  of  boiling 
water)  of  solids  contained  in  the  fruit  from  which  said  vinegar  is  fer- 
mented, to  wit:  One  and  fifty-one  one-hundredths  per  cent  of  solids; 
and  said  vinegar  contained  less  than  two  and  a  half  tenths  of  one  per 
cent  ash  or  mineral  matter,  the  same  being  the  product  of  the  mate- 
rial from  which  said  vinegar  was  manufactured,  to  wit:  Eight  one 
hundredths  of  one  per  cent  of  ash  or  mineral  matter,  against  the  form 
of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided,"  etc. 

The  cause  was  commenced  in  the  police  court,  and,  being  removed 
to  the  circuit,  came  on  to  be  heard  before  a  jury.  The  defendant- 
refused  to  plead,  and  counsel  for  defendant  thereupon  made  a  motion 
to  quash  the  complaint  and  summons  for  several  reasons  which  will 
hereafter  be  discussed.  The  court  upon  the  trial  directed  a  verdict 
of  guilty,  and  the  cause  comes  to  this  court  on  exceptions  before 
judgment. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  57 

The  title  of  the  act  reads :  '  'An  act  in  relation  to  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  vinegar,  and  to  repeal  act  No.  224  of  the  Public  Acts  of 
1889,  approved,"  etc.  Sections  one  and  two  of  the  act,  being  the 
sections  in  question,  provide: 

"Section  1.     The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan  enact,  That  no 

f)erson  shall  manufacture  for  sale,  olTer  or  expose  for  sale,  sell  or  de- 
iver,  or  have  in  his  possession  -with  intent  to  sell  or  deliver,  any  vine- 
gar not  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act.  No  vinegar 
shall  be  sold  as  apple,  orchard  or  cider  vinegar,  which  is  not  the  legiti- 
mate product  of  pure  apple  juice,  kno-\\Ti  as  apple  cider  or  vinegar 
not  made  exclusively  of  said  apple  cider  or  vinegar  into  which  for- 
eign substance,  drugs  or  acids  have  been  introduced,  as  may  appear 
upon  proper  test,  and  upon  said  test,  'shall  contain  not  less  than  one 
and  three-fourths  per  cent,  by  weight,  of  cider  vinegar  solids  upon 
full  evaporation  at  the  temperature  of  boiling  water. 

'  'Section  2.  All  vinegar  made  by  fermentation  and  oxidation  with- 
out the  intervention  of  distillation  shall  be  branded  'fermented  vine- 
gar' with  the  name  of  the  fruit  or  substance  from  which  the  same  is 
made,  And  all  vinegar  made  wholly  or  in  part  from  distilled  liquor 
shall  be  branded  'distilled  vinegar,'  and  all  of  such  distilled  vinegar 
shall  be  free  from  coloring  matter  added  during  or  after  distillation 
and  from  color  other  from  that  imparted  to  it  by  distillation.  And 
all  ferme^ted  vinegar  not  distilled  shall  contain  not  less  than  one 
and  three-fourths  per  cent,  by  weight,  upon  full  evaporation  (at  the 
temperature  of  boiling  water)  of  solids,  contained  in  the  fruit  or  grain 
from  which  said  vinegar  is  fermented,  and  said  vinegar  shall  contain 
not  less  than  two  and  a  half  tenths  of  one  per  cent  ash  or  mineral 
matter,  the  same  being  the  product  of  the  material  from  which  said 
vinegar  is  manufactured.  And  all  vinegar  shall  be  made  wholly  from 
the  fruit  or  grain  from  which  it  purports  to  be  or  is  represented  to 
be  made,  and  shall  contain  no  foreign  substance  and  shall  contain 
not  less  than  four  per  cent,  by  weight,  of  absolute  acetic  acid." 

It  appears  by  the  testimony  that  the  defendant,  a  Michigan  cor- 
poration doing  business  at  Grand  Rapids,  on  February  5,  1898,  sold 
a  barrel  of  vinegar  to  one  John  T.  Owens  of  Benton  Harbor.  The 
sale  is  admitted.  A  sample  of  the  vinegar  was  taken  from  this  bar- 
rel and  analyzed  by  the  State  analyst,  Mr.  Fred  H.  Borradaile.  The 
correctness  of  this  analysis  is  not  disputed.  This  analysis  showed 
that  the  vinegar  did  not  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  statute 
in  that  it  did  not  contain  the  amount  of  solids  nor  the  amount  of  ash 
or  mineral  matter  required. 

The  contentions  made  by  counsel  for  defendant  mostly  relate  ta 
the  validity  of  the  act. 

1.  It  is  contended  that  the  title  to  the  act  does  not  express  any^ 
8 


58  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


object:  tfiat  the  act  was  intended  to  prevent  deception  in  the  sale 
of  vinegar  or  to  prevent  adulteration  of  vinegar,  but  that  no  such 
object  is  expressed  in  the  title;  and  that  the  act  is  therefore  in  conflict 
with  section  20  of  article  4,  of  the  constitution  of  this  State,  which 
provides  that:  ''No  law  shall  embrace  more  than  one  object,  which 
shall  be  expressed  in  its  title." 

We  think  this  contention  sufficiently  answered  by  what  was  said 
by  this  court  in  Soukup  v.  Van  Dyke,  109  Mich,  681.  There  the 
title  was:  ''An  act  relative  to  justices'  courts  in  the  city  of  Grand 
Rapids."  It  was  said:  "The  title  is  sufficient  if  it  fairly  and  reason- 
ably announces  the  object  and  that  is  a  single  one.  If  this  require- 
ment be  observed,  the  legislature  must  determine  for  itself  how  broad 
and  comprehensive  shall  be  the  object  of  a  statute  and  how  much 
particularity  shall  be  employed  in  the  title  in  defining  it. " 

In  People  v.  Kelly,  99  Mich.  82,  the  title  under  discussion  was: 
"^'An  act  relative  to  disorderly  persons,  and  to  repeal,"  etc. 

See  also: 

State  V.  County  Judges,  2  Iowa,  280. 

McAunich  v.  The  Miss.  &  Mo.  R.  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa,  342. 

2.  Counsel  contend  that  the  complaint  being  drawn  under  section 
iiwo  of  the  act,  no  conviction  can  follow;  that  if  any  violation  of  the 
law  be  found,  it  is  of  section  one  and  not  of  section  two  of  the  act; 
iihat,  therefore,  the  complaint  was  drawn  under  the  wrong  section. 

This  contention  cannot  be  sustained.  It  is  plain  from  the  read- 
ing of  these  sections  that  the  legislature  intended  that  all  fermented 
vinegar  should  come  up  to  the  required  standard,  whether  made  from 
fruit  or  grain. 

3.  The  defendant  contends  that  the  act  is  unreasonable  and  there- 
fore void  as  beyond  the  police  power  of  the  State,  in  that  the  test 
for  cider  vinegar  in  regard  to  solids  is  arbitrary,  unscientific  and  not 
•calculated  to  accomplish  the  end  sought  by  the  legislature,  viz.:  To 
protect  the  public  health  against  spurious  vinegar;  that  such  test 
is  no  test,  because: 

a.  Said  solids  and  ash  are  indifferent  ingredients  of  vinegar  from 
a  hygienic  stand  point. 

b.  Their  comparative  absence  or  presence  is  not  an  essential  in- 
gredient of  pure  apple  cider  vinegar. 

c.  A  vinegar  can  be  manufactured  which  will  satisfy  the  require- 
ments of  the  statute  and  yet  contain  no  materials  from  apples  or  the 
product  of  apples. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  59 

d.  A  pure  apple  cider  vinegar  is  frequently  made  which  is  below 
the  requirements  of  the  statute  in  solids  and  ash, 

e.  The  less  proportion  of  solids  is  a  proof  of  greater  purity  in  the 
vinegar  and  of  its  better  keeping  qualities. 

These  questions  might  very  properly  be  addressed  to  the  legisla- 
ture, but  are  matters  with  which  the  court  has  nothing  to  do.  It 
is  not  a  part  of  the  functions  of  the  court  to^  investigate  the  facts  en- 
tering into  questions  of  public  policy  merely.  Under  our  system  that 
power  is  lodged  in  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government.  It  be- 
longs to  that  branch  to  determine  primarily  what  measures  are  ap- 
propriate  or  needful  for  the  protection  of  the  public  morals,  the  public 
health  or  the  public  safety. 

Barton  v.  McWhinney,  85  Ind.,  481. 
Mugler  V.  Kansas,  123  U.  S.,  660. 
Powell  V.  Pennsylvania,  127  U.  S.,  685. 

In  People  v.  Snowberger,  113  Mich.  92,  it  was  said  by  this  court: 
^'The  act  may  work  hardship  in  many  cases,  but  that  question  is  one 
to  be  addressed  to  the  legislature  and  not  to  the  courts." 

The  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  acts  found  in  many  states 
relative  to  the  sale  of  milk  below  a  certain  standard  has  been  frequent- 
ly raised  in  the  courts,  and  the  acts  upheld. 

In  Com.  V.  Evans,  132  Mass,  11,  the  court  passing  upon  such  a 
statute,  said:  "The  intention  of  the  legislature  and  the  practical 
operation  of  this  section  in  connection  with  the  third  section  is  to 
provide  that  it  shall  be  unlawful  to  sell  milk  containing' less  than  thir- 
teen per  centum  of  milk  solids.  This  belongs  to  the  class  of  police 
regulations  designated  to  prevent  frauds  and  to  protect  the  health 
of  the  people,  which  it  is  within  the  constitutional  power  of  the  legis- 
lature to  enact." 

In  State  v.  Smyth,  14  R.  I.  100,  the  court  said:  "It  was  the  pur- 
pose of  the  statute  to  prohibit,  not  only  the  dealing  in  milk  which 
had  been  adulterated,  but  also  in  milk  of  such  inferior  quality  as  to 
fall  below  the  standard  named  in  section  three.  It  is  equally  a  fraud 
on  the  buyer,  whether  the  milk  which  he  buys  was  originally  good 
a,nd  has  been  deteriorated  by  the  addition  of  water  or  whether  in  its 
natural  state  it  is  so  poor  that  it  contains  the  same  proportion  of  water 
as  that  which  has  been  adulterated."     See  also: 

State  V.  Newton,  45  N.  J.  L.,  469. 
Bertholf  v.  O'Reilly,  74  N.  Y.,  509. 
State  V.  Campbell,  64-  N.  H.,  403. 
10  Am.  St.  Rep.  419. 


60  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


But  counsel  contend  that  the  reasonableness  of  this  act  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact  for  the  jury  to  determine  from  the  expert  chemical 
evidence. 

This  question  is  neither  for  the  court  nor  the  jury  to  determine.  In 
People  V.  Clipperly,  101  N.  Y.  634,  that  very  question  was  discussed 
and  decided  adversely  to  the  claim  here.  It  was  said:  "The  de- 
fendant takes  the  broader  ground  that  the  legislature  cannot  under 
the  constitution  prohibit  the  sale  of  milk  drawn  from  healthy  cow& 
which  in  its  natural  state  falls  below  standard  fixed  by  the  act,  un- 
less such  milk,  or  the  articles  made  from  it,  are  in  fact  unwholesome 
or  dangerous  to  public  health.  How  is  that  question  of  fact  to  be 
determined?  The  court  cannot  take  judicial  notice  whether  milk 
below  the  standard  is  or  is  not  unwholesome  or  dangerous  to  public 
health.  Is  that  to  be  a  question  for  the  jury?  If  so,  the  court  must 
charge  a  jury  in  each  case  that  if  they  find  milk  below  that  standard 
to  be  unwholesome,  then  the  statute  is  constitutional;  if  they  find  it- 
to  be  wholesome,  then  the  statute  is  unconstitutional.  Evidently 
a  constitutional  question  cannot  be  settled,  or  rather,  unsettled  ia 
that  way.  The  constitutionality  would  vary  with  the  varying  judg- 
ments of  juries." 

In  the  emery  wheel  case  before  us,  in  People  v.  Smith,  108  Mich.,, 
p.  534,  a  somewhat  similar  question  was  discussed.  It  was  said: 
"If  the  courts  find  the  plain  provisions  of  the  constitution  violated,, 
or  if  it  can  be  said  that  the  act  is  not  within  the  rule  of  necessity  in 
view  of  facts  of  which  judicial  notice  may  be  taken,  then  the  act 
must  fall;  otherwise  it  should  stand. " 

See  also: 

People  V.  Girard,   145  N.  Y.,   109. 
(45  Am.  St.  Rep.  595.) 

4.  Counsel  also  contend  that  defendant  was  not  allowed,  nor 
could  it  obtain,  a  sample  of  the  vinegar  in  question  for  analysis,  and 
was  deprived  of  the  right  to  produce  evidence  as  to  the  amount  of 
solids  in  the  vinegar;  and  was  thus  deprived  of  property  without  due 
process  of  law. 

The  record  shows  that  the  defendant  was  not  prevented  from  get- 
ting a  sample  of  the  vinegar  by  any  person  interested  in  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  suit.  The  record  shows  that  the  only  effort  it  made  to« 
get  such  sample  was  a  letter  written  to  Mr.  Owens  who  had  bought 
and  paid  for  the  vinegar,  requesting  him  to  return  it,  to  which  th& 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  61 

"defendant  received  no  reply,  and  it  does  not  appear  that  Mr.  Owens 
had  any  of  the  vinegar  left  at  that  time.  No  sample  was  left  with 
■the  defendant    by  the  prosecution;  nor  was  this  necessary. 

Com.  V.  Coleman,  157  Mass.,  460. 

5.  This  statute  forbids  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  vinegar  not  in 
-compliance  therewith;  and  persons  manufacturing  or  selling  vinegar 
below  the  standard  do  so  at  their  peril.  It  is  no  defense  that  the 
person  so  manufacturing  or  selling  vinegar  below  the  standard  has 
no^knowledge  that  it  is  not  within  the  standard  prescribed. 

People  V.  Snowberger,  113  Mich.  86;  71  N.  W.  R.,  497. 

"We  have  examined  the  other  questions  raised,  but  do  not  deem  it 
necessary  to  discuss  them.  They  relate  mostly  to  offers  of  testimony 
which  the  court  below  ruled  out;  and,  we  think,  properly. 

The  testimony  was' uncontradicted  that  the  vinegar  sold  was  not 
in  compliance  with  the  statute.     The  sale  was  admitted. 

The  court  was  not  in  error  in  directing  the  verdict.  The  convic- 
tion must  be  affirmed. 

Grant,  C.  J.,  did  not  sit.     The  other  justices  concurred. 


PEOPLE  V.  DETTENTHALER. 

GROSVENOR  v.  JACKSON  CIRCUIT  JUDGE. 

(Opinions  filed  December  6,  1898.) 

Constitutional    Law — Passage    of   Act  Without  Enactment   Clause — • 

Constitutional  Provision  Mandatory — Addition  of  Clause 

by  Governor — Act  76,  Laws  of  1897,  Invalid. 

1.  The  provision  in  the  Michigan  State  constitution,  found  in  Sec. 
48  of  Art.  IV,  that  all  laws  shall  be  styled,  *  'The  People  of  the 
State  of  Michigan  enact,"  is  mandatory  and  the  passage  of  an 
act  without  the  enactment  clause  renders  the  act  m valid. 

2.  The  addition  of  the  enacting  clause  by  the  Governor  before  affix- 
ing his  signature  will  not  render  the  law  valid  which  was  passed 
without  an  enactment  clause. 


62  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


3.  Act  No.  76,  Laws  of  1897,  being  "An  act  to  prevent  deception 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  imitation  butter"  held  to  be  in- 
valid because  of  the  passage  of  the  act  without  an  enactment- 
clause  was  not  rendered  valid  by  the  addition  of  such  clause  by 
the  Governor  before  affixing  his  signature  to  the  act. 

Error  to  the  superior  court  of  Grand  Rapids;  Edwin  A.  Burlin- 
game,  judge. 

Exceptions  taken  by  Frank  J.  Dettenthaler  from  a  conviction  of 
a  violation  of  the  pure  food  law. — Reversed  and  no  new  trial. 

Frank  D.  Rodgers,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  (Rodgers,  McDonald  & 
Corwin  of  counsel),  for  the  people. 

Rood  &  Hindman  and  E.  F.  Sweet,  for  respondent. 

Certiorari  by  Elliot  O.  Grosvenor,  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner, 
to  review  the  action  of  the  Jackson  circuit  judge  in  denying  a  man- 
damus.    Affirmed. 

John  G.  Hawley  and  Benn  M.  Corwin,  for  relator. 

Rood  &  Hindman  and  E.  F.  Sweet,  for  respondent. 

Hooker,  J.:  These  cases  involve  the  validity  of  act  No.  76,  Pub- 
lic Acts,  1897,  which  is  as  follows: 

"An  act  to  prevent  deception  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  im- 
itation butter."  ^ 

Section  1.  The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan  enact,  That  no 
person  by  himself  or  his  agents,  or  servants,  shall  render  or  manu- 
facture, sell,  offer  for  sale,  expose  for  sale,  or  have  in  his  possession 
with  intent  to  sell,  any  article,  product  or  compound  made  wholly 
or  in  part  out  of  any  fat,  oil  or  oleaginous  substance  or  compound 
thereof,  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the 
same,  which  shall  be  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter,  produced  from 
pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same:  Provided,  That 
nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  prohibit  the  manufacture 
or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form,  and  in  such 
manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from 
coloration  or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter. 

Sec.  2.  Whoever  violates  any  of  the  provisions  of  section  one  (1) 
of  this  act  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  con- 
viction thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  fifty  dol- 
lars, nor  more  than  five  hundred  dollars,  and  the  costs  of  prosecution, 
or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  or  State  House  of  Correction. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  63 

and  Reformatory  at  Ionia,  for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than 
three  years,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court  for  each  and  every  offense. 
Approved  April  15,  1897. 

The  evidence  in  the  first  entitled  cause  shows  that  the  defendant 
was  convicted  of  the  alleged  offense  of  selling  oleomargarine  in  con- 
travention of  this  act. 

In  the  other  a  complaint  was  made  of  a  similar  act  to  a  justice, 
who  refused  to  issue  the  warrant,  and  on  application  the  circuit  court 
denied  a  mandamus  to  compel  it.  The  cases  raise  substantially  the 
same  questions,  and  were  argued,  and  will  be  considered  together. 
The  validity  of  the  law  is  questioned.  The  record  shows  that  this 
was  a  senate  bill  and  passed  the  senate  without  the  constitutional 
enacting  clause.  The  records  of  the  house  show  that  the  bill  was 
reported  by  the  committee  on  agriculture  and  the  committee  of 
the  whole,  without  amendment,  and  with  the  recommendation 
that  it  be  passed.  Under  the  head  of  ''third  reading  of  bills^ 
upon  passage,"  the  record  of  the  house  shows  that  "pending  the 
third  reading  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Chamberlain  moved  that  the  bill 
be  recommitted  to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  which  motion 
did  not  prevail.  The  bill  having  been  read  a  third  time,  and  the 
question  being  upon  its  passage  pending  the  taking  of  the  vote,  Mr. 
Graham  demanded  the  previous  question.  The  demand  was  seconded. 
The  question  being,  'Shall  the  main  question  be  npw  put?'  The 
same  was  ordered.  The  bill  was  then  passed,  a  majority  of  all  the 
members  elect  voting  therefor,  by  yeas  and  nays  as  follows:  *  *  * 
yeas  56,  nays  19."  As  this  is  the  only  time  the  bill  was  before  the 
house,  we  must  find  that  the  bill  passed  the  house  without  an  en- 
acting clause,  unless  the  contrary  can  be  shown  by  other  evidence. 
Counsel  undertook  to  show  that  it  was  amended  in  this  particular, 
by  the  records  of  the  senate,  and  the  testimony  of  the  clerk  of  the 
house.  The  evidence  is  in  brief,  that  previous  to  the  passage  of  the 
bill  in  the  house  the  clerk  noticed  the  absence  of  the  enacting  clause, 
and  brought  it  to  the  attention  of  the  house,  and  said  that  he  would 
enter  one,  and  accordingly  wrote  the  words  in  the  original  bill,  i.  e., 
the  one  which  was  then  before  the  house.  He  did  not  testify  that 
the  house  took  any  action  upon  it,  or  that  any  record  was  made  of  it. 

The  senate  record  shows  that  the  bill  was  subsequently  returned 
to  the  senate,  accompanied  by  a  letter  from  the  clerk  of  the  house ^ 
reading  as  follows: 


^64  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

"House    of    Representatives, 

"  Lansing,  April  7, 1897. 
^'To  the  President  of  the  Senate: 

"Sir — I  am  instructed  by  the  House  to  return  to  the  Senate  the 
following  bill:     Senate  bill  No.  6,  file  No.  24,  entitled 

"A  bill  to  prevent  deception  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  imi- 
tation butter'  and  to  inform  the  Senate  that  the  House  has  amended 
the  same  as  follows:  By  inserting  in  line  1,  Section  1,  after  the  words 
'Section  1,'  the  words  'The  People  of  the  State  of  Michigan  enact.' 

"  Very    respectfully, 
"LEWIS   M.   MILLER, 
"Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
"In  the  passage  of  which,  as  thus  amended,  the  house  has  con- 
curred by  a  majority  vote  of  all  the  members  elect." 

It  further  appears  that  the  Senate  concurred  in  such  amendment. 
We  must  determine,  therefore,  whether  the  house  is  shown  to  have 
amended  the  bill  by  inserting  an  enacting  clause  and  if  not  whether 
the  law  is  valid  without  it. 

The  most  that  can  be  claimed  is  that  there  is  oral  testimony,  that 
the  clerk  announced  its  absence  and  stated  that  he  would  supply  it. 
Inferentially  perhaps  we  may  say  that  there  was  no  objection  made, 
but  the  evidence  is  silent  as  to  what,  if  anything,  occurred.  There 
is  nothing  but  this  inference  of  silence  which  imports  acquiescence 
in  the  amendment.  There  is  nothing  to  show  definite  action  by 
the  house  which  alone  had  power  to  amend  the  bill  before  it.  So 
that  if  the  clause  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  act  we  need  not 
discuss  the  propriety  of  admitting  parol  evidence  to  prove  an  amend- 
ment which  should  be  shown  by  the  record  if  one  was  authorized. 

See  Attorney  General  v.  Rice,  64  Mich.,  391. 
Hart  V.  McElroy,  72  Mich.,  446. 
Sackrider  v.  Supervisors,  79  Mich.,  66. 

Is  the  constitutional  enacting  clause  a  requisite  to  a  valid  law? 
This  must  depend  upon  whether  the  constitutional  provision  is  to 
be  considered  a  mandatory  provision  or  directory  merely. 

See  Constitution,  Art.  IV.,  Sec.  48. 

Among  the  authorities  cited  by  the  relator  in  support  of  his  con- 
tention, is  that  of  Swann  v.  Buck,  40  Miss.  268.  The  constitutional 
provision  is  similar  to  ours,  and  it  was  held  that  a  substantial  com- 
pliance was  sufficient.     In  that  case  the  style  of  the  resolution  was: 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  65 

'''Resolved  by  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Mississippi."  The  court 
was  unable  to  discover  a  previous  judicial  decision  of  the  question, 
but  quoted  Mr,  Gushing  to  the  effect  that  the  prescribed  ''form  must 
be  strictly  pursued,  and  that  no  equivalent  language  will  be  sufficient," 
and  while  declining  to  accept  his  rule  said:  "It  is  necessary  that 
every  law  should  show  on  its  face  the  authority  by  which  it  is  adopted, 
and  promulgated,  and  that  it  should  clearly  appear  that  it  is  intended 
by  the  legislative  power  that  enacts  it  that  it  should  take  effect  as 
a  law.  These  conditions  being  fulfilled  all  that  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary is  expressed.  The  word  'resolved'  is  as  potent  to  declare  the 
legislative  will,  as*  the  word  'enacted.'  " 

The  case  of  McPherson  v.  Leonard,  29  Md.  377,  held  that  the  pro- 
vision of  the  constitution  of  Maryland  was  directory,  and  that  the 
omission  of  the  words,  "by  the  general  assembly  of  Maryland,"  did 
not  render  the  law  invalid.  The  question  appears  to  have  been  treated 
as  a  new  one. 

The  case  of  Cape  Girardeau  v.  Riley,  52  Mo.  427,  follows  the  Mary- 
land case,  in  holding  the  provision  directory;  the  court  saying  that 
after  diligent  search,  no  case  holding  to  the  contrary  had  been  found. 
In  this  case,  like  the  one  before  us,  the  entire  enacting  clause  was 
wanting.  In  this  connection  we  may  add  that  previous  decisions 
of  the  same  court,  holding  the  provision  that  writs  should  run  in  the 
name  of  the  state,  was  directory,  were  given  weight.  In  our  State 
a  contrary  holding  wiU  be  found. 

See  Forbes  v.  Darling,  94  Mich.,  621. 

There  are,  however,  cases  which  take  a  contrary  view  of  the  law, 
and  adhere  to  the  doctrine  asserted  by  Mr.  Gushing,  and  the  late  Mr. 
Justice  Gooley,  in  his  work  on  constitutional  limitations,  6  Ed.,  p. 
93,  viz.: 

"But  the  courts  tread  upon  very  dangerous  ground  when  they  ven- 
ture to  apply  the  rules  which  distinguish  directory  and  mandatory 
statutes  to  the  provisions  of  a  constitution.  Constitutions  do  not 
usually  undertake  to  prescribe  mere  rules  of  proceeding,  except  when 
such  rules  are  looked  upon  as  essential  to  the  thing  to  be  done;  and 
they  must  then  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  limitations  upon  the  power 
to  be  exercised.  It  is  the  province  of  an  instrument  of  this  solemn 
and  permanent  character  to  establish  those  fundamental  maxims  and 
fix  those  unvarying  rules  by  which  all  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment must  at  all  times  shape  their  conduct,  and  if  it  descends  to  pre- 
scribing mere  rules  of  order  in  unessential  matters,  it  is  lowering  the 


STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


proper  dignity  of  such  an  instrument,  and  usurping  the  proper  pro- 
vince of  ordinary  legislation.  We  are  not,  therefore,  to  expect  to- 
find  in  a  constitutional  provision  which  the  people,  in  adopting  it, 
have  not  regarded  as  of  high  importance,  and  worthy  to  be  embraced 
in  an  instrument,  which,  for  a  time  at  least,  is  to  control  alike  the 
government  and  the  governed,  and  to  form  a  standard  by  which  is- 
to  be  measured  the  power  which  can  be  exercised  as  well  by  the  dele- 
gate as  by  the  sovereign  people  thfemselves.  If  directions  are  given 
respecting  the  times  or  modes  of  proceeding  in  which  a  power  should 
be  exercised,  there  is  at  least  a  strong  presumption  that  the  people 
designed  it  should  be  exercised,  in  that  time  and  mode  only;  and  we- 
impute  to  the  people  a  want  of  due  appreciation  of  the  purpose  and 
proper  province  of  such  an  instrument,  when  we  infer  that  such  direc- 
tions are  given  to  any  other  end.  Especially  when,  as  has  already 
been  said,  it  is  but  fair  to  presume  that  the  people  in  their  constitu- 
tion have  expressed  themselves  in  careful  and  measured  terms,  cor- 
responding with  the  immense  importance  of  the  powers  delegated ,. 
and  with  a  view  to  leave  as  little  as  possible  to  implication. " 

There  are  some  cases,  however,  where  the  doctrine  of  directory 
statutes  has  been  applied  to  constitutional  provisions,  but  they  are 
so  plainly  at  variance  with  the  weight  of  authority  upon  the  precise- 
points  considered  that  we  feel  warranted  in  saying  that  the  judicial* 
decisions  as  they  now  stand  do  not  sanction  the  application. 

The  question  arose  in  Washington  territory  over  a  law  fixing  the 
seat  of  government,  and  the  opinion  of  Gushing  was  quoted  and  fol- 
lowed. 1  Wash.  Ter.  116.  The  case  of  Nevada  v.  Rogers,  10  Nevada 
250,  decided  in  1875,  did  the  same.  An  extended  discussion  of  the- 
subject  will  be  found  in  that  case,  in  support  of  the  proposition  that- 
the  language  of  the  constitution  should  be  literally  followed. 

The  opinion  concludes  with  the  following  pertinent  and  emphatic^ 
language: 

"Our  constitution  expressly  provides  that  the  enacting  clause  of 
every  law  shall  be  'The  People  of  the  State  of  Nevada,  represented 
in  senate  and  assembly,  do  enact  as  follows.'  This  language  is  suscepti- 
ble of  but  one  interpretation.  There  is  no  doubtful  meaning  as  to- 
the  intention.  It  is,  in  our  judgment,  an  imperative  mandate  of  the 
people  in  their  sovereign  capacity  to  the  legislature,  requiring  that  all 
laws  to  be  binding  upon  them  shall,  upon  their  face,  express  the  au- 
thority by  which  they  were  enacted,  and  as  this  act  comes  to  us  with- 
out such  authority  appearing  upon  its  face,  it  is  not  a  law." 

The  case  of  the  State  v.  Patterson,  98  N.  C.  662,  is  strong  in  its^ 
condemnation  of  the  practice  of  treating  constitutional  requirements- 
as  directory.     The  case  of  Powell  v.  Jackson,  51  Mich.  130,  is  not  ii* 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  67 

point,  as  the  bill  was  duly  and  seasonably  amended,  if  we  may  ac- 
cept the  statement  of  the  briefs  of  the  counsel  and  the  syllabus. 

The  trend  of  the  weight  of  the  authority  is  in  our  opinion  against 
the  relator's  contention.      ^ 

It  is  urged  with  some  plausibility  that  the  insertion  of  this  provision 
previous  to  the  signature  by  the  Governor  is  a  sufficient  compliance 
with  the  constitution,  from  which  we  understand  the  claim  to  be  made 
that  although  the  enacting  clause  was  wanting  when  the  bill  came 
to  the  Governor  it  might  have  been  supplied  by  him.  But  it  is  thought 
that  this  proposition  is  tenable  only  upon  the  assumption  that  the 
constitutional  provision  is  directory  merely.  The  Governor  has  no 
power  to  make  laws.  The  legislative  power  is  in  no  part  vested  in 
him,  being  by  Sec.l,  Article  IV,  of  the  constitution,  vested  in  the  senate 
and  house  of  representatives.  It  is  not  the  design  of  the  constitu- 
tion that  he  should  legislate.  His  office  is  a  check  upon  the  legisla- 
ture and  he  may  compel  a  reconsideration  of  a  bill  by  seasonably  re- 
turning it  to  the  appropriate  house  with  his  objections  to  it,  and  when 
the  legislature  has  adjourned  his  neglect  to  sign  it  prevents  it  from 
becoming  a  law,  but  he  has  not  the  slightest  power  in  framing  the 
law.  Indeed,  it  is  a  fundamental  principal  in  American  constitutions 
that  the  executive  shall  not  make  laws.  The  following  language 
from  the  opinion  in  the  case  of  state  of  Nevada  v.  Rogers,  10  Neb, 
250,  is  apropos  to  this  subject: 

"Without  the  concurrence  of  the  senate  the  people  have  no  power 
to  enact  any  law.  Every  person  at  all  familiar  with  the  practice  of 
legislative  bodies  is  aware  that  one  of  the  most  common  methods 
adopted  to  kill  a  bill  and  prevent  its  becoming  a  law,  is  for  a  mem- 
ber to  move  to  strike  out  tne  enacting  clause.  If  such  motion  is  car- 
ried the  bill  is  lost.  Can  it  be  seriously  contended  that  such  a  bill,, 
with  its  head  cut  off,  could  thereafter  by  any  legislative  action  be- 
come a  law?  Certainly  not.  The  certificates  of  the  proper  officers 
of  the  senate  and  assembly,  that  such  an  act  was  passed  in  their  re- 
spective houses,  do  not,  and  could  not  impart  vitality  to  any  act 
which,  upon  its  face,  failed  to  express  the  authoritv  bv  which  it  was 
enacted." 

This  being  so,  the  only  justification  for  the  insertion  of  the  enact- 
ing clause  by  the  Governor  is  to  be  found  in  the  assumption  that  it  is 
a  clerical  omission  of  an  unimportant  matter  and  it  might  as  well  be 
held  that  one  of  the  houses,  or  a  clerk,  or  even  the  printer  of  the  laws, 
might  make  the  correction,  as  that  the  Governor  might  do  it. . 


68  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


Some  of  the  states  have  sustained  laws  without  enacting  clauses, 
but  we  do  not  know  of  one  that  has  made  their  validity  depend  upon 
the  unauthorized  action  of  some  officer  or  person.  They  have  pre- 
ferred to  rest  their  action  upon  the  well  recognized  distinction  be- 
tween mandatory  and  directory  provisions.  If  the  provision  is  manda- 
tory that  the  law  shall  have  a  prescribed  style  and  the  making  of  laws 
is  confined  to  the  legislative  branch  of  the  government,  it  cannot  be 
consistently  held  that  omissions  of  essential  parts  Of  a  law  may  be 
supplied  and  corrections  made  by  persons  without  authority;  and  the 
public  necessities  should  be  much  greater  than  in  the  present  case, 
before  such  a  proposition  should  be  seriously  considered.  If  on  the 
other  hand  there  is  warrant  for  treating  the  provision  as  directory, 
a  much  less  dangerous  precedent  is  established.  But  as  has  been 
shown,  the  weight  of  authority  forbids  it,  and  in  our  opinion  it  will 
be  an  unfortunate  day  for  constitutional  rights  when  courts  begin 
the  insidious  process  of  undermining  constitutions  by  holding  un- 
ambiguous provisions  and  limitations  to  be  directory  merely,  to  be 
disregarded  at  pleasure.  In  the  present  case  it  will  be  much  better 
that  the  legislature  shall  correct  its  mistake,  than  that  the  courts 
shall  sanction  the  irregular  correction. 

We  are  therefore  constrained  to  hold  that  the  law  under  discussion 
is  void,  and  in  the  certiorari  case  the  order  is  affirmed,  in  that  of  Det- 
tenthaler  the  conviction  is  reversed  and  no  new  trial  ordered.  The 
other  justices  concurred. 


GROSVENOR  v.  DUFFY. 

(Opinion  filed  September  18,  1899.) 

Pure  Food  Law — Sale  of  Oleomargarine  Colored  to  Imitate  Butter — 
Constitutionality  of  Act. 

The  sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  with  a  harmless  substance  to  imi- 
tate June  butter,  but  which  is  sold  and  purchased  as  oleomargar- 
ine, is  not  in  violation  of  section  3  of  Act  118  of  the  Public  Acts 
of  1897,  being  an  act  to  prohibit  and  prevent  adulteration,  fraud 
and  deception  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  articles  of  food  and 
drink. 

Certiorari  to  review  the  action  of  the  Washtenaw  circuit  judge  in 
refusing  the  appfication  of  Elliot  O.  Grosvenor,  Dairy  and  Food  Com- 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  69 

missioner,  for  mandamus  to  compel  John  L.   Duffy,  justice  of  the 
peace,  to  issue  a  warrant.     Affirmed. 

Smedley  &  Corwin,  for  relator. 

John  J.  Speed  and  J.  P.  Lee,  for  respondent. 

* 

The  relator  presented  to  a  justice  of  the  peace  a  complaint  in  writ- 
ing, charging  that  '  'Casper  Rinsey  did  unlawfully  offer  and  expose  for 
sale,  and  did  unlawfully  sell  and  deliver  to  said  Elliot  O.  Grosvenor, 
a  large  quantity,  to  wit,  one  pound  of  oleomargarine,  which  was  then 
and  there  an  article  of  food  intended  to  be  eaten  by  man,  and  which 
was  then  and  there  adulterated  within  the  meaning  of  act  No.  193 
of  the  Public  Acts  of  Michigan  for  the  year  1895,  as  amended  by  act 
No.  118  of  the  Public  Acts  of  Michigan  for  the  year  1897,  in  this,  to 
wit:  that  said  oleomargarine  was  then  and  there  an  imitation  of 
another  article  of  food,  to  wit:  an  imitation  of  a  rich  June  butter; 
and  said  oleomargarine  had  been  and  was  then  and  there  colored, 
whereby  inferiority  was  concealed  and  by  which  means  it  was  made 
to  appear  better  and  of  greater  value  than  it  really  was,  to  wit,  in 
this :  That  it  was  thereby  made  to  appear  like  butter  of  a  grade  which 
was  then  and  there  of  a  greater  value  than  the  said  oleomargarine; 
that  the  said  oleomargarine  was  labeled  'oleomargarine'  and 
stamped  with  the  seller's  name;  and  that  the  tub  and  wrapper  which 
contained  the  same  bore  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer 
and  was  distinctly  labeled  oleomargarine'." 

'  'Said  complainant  on  his  oath  aforesaid,  further  says,  that  he  called 
for  oleomargarine,  and  that  the  said  oleomargarine  was  sold  to  him 
as  oleomargarine  the  same  as  to  an  ordinary  customer,  freely  and 
without  objection,  and  that  for  this  reason  he  did  not  take  the  steps 
required  bv  section  6,  act  No.  154  of  the  Pubhc  Acts  of  Michigan  for 
the  year  1897. " 

The  justice  refused  to  entertain  the  complaint  and  issue  a  warrant, 
whereupon  the  relator  applied  to  the  circuit  court  for  Washtenaw 
county  for  the  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  justice  to  issue  a  war- 
rant and  proceed  to  hear  the  case'  The  circuit  court  refused  the  writ 
and  the  case  is  brought  to  this  court  by  certiorari  for  review. 

Grant,  C.  J.  (after  stating  the  facts).  The  title  of  the  act  reads 
"An  act  to  prohibit  and  prevent  adulteration,  fraud  and  deception 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  articles  of  food  and  drink."     Sec.  3,  as 


70  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


amended  by  act  No.  118,  Public  Acts  1897,    so  far  as  it  applies  to  this 
case,  reads: 

"An  article  shall  be  deemed  to  be  adulterated  within  the  meaning 
of  this  act:     *     *     * 

"Fourth — If  it  is  an  imitation  of,  or  sold  under  the  name  of  another 
article.     *     *     * 

"Sixth — If  it  is  colored,  coated,  polished  or  powdered,  whereby 
damage  or  inferiority  is  concealed,  or  if  by  any  means  it  is  made  to 
appear  better  or  of  greater  value  than  it  really  is, 

"Seventh — If  it  contains  any  added  substance  or  ingredient  which 
is  poisonous  or  injurious  to  health:  Provided,  That  nothing  in  this 
act  shall  prevent  the  coloring  of  pure  butter:  And  provided  further, 
That  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  mixtures  or  com- 
pounds recognized  as  ordinary  articles  or  ingredients  of  articles  of 
food,  if  each  and  every  package  sold  or  offered  for  sale,  bear  the  name 
and  address  of  the  manufacturer  and  be  distinctly  labeled  under  its 
own  distinctive  name,  and  in  a  manner  so  as  to  plainly  and  correctly 
show  that  it  is  a  mixture  or  compound,  and  is  not  in  violation  with 
definition  fourth  and  seventh  of  this  section." 

It  is  not  claimed  that  the  sale  made  by  Rinsey  violates  subdivision 
seven.  The  act  charged  in  the  complaint  is  neither  adulteration, 
fraud  nor  deception  under  any  definition  of  these  words  to  be  found 
in  any  dictionary.  Adulteration  is  '  'the  act  of  corrupting  or  debasing, 
the  act  of  mixing  something  impure  or  spurious  with  something  pure 
or  genuine,  or  an  inferior  article  with  a  superior  one  of  the  same  kind." 

Bouv.,  L.  D.,  126. 
Century  Dictionary. 

Counsel  do  not  urge  that  it  comes  within  the  word  "fraud"  or 
"deceit."  Neither  is  it  urged  that  the  article  is  made  to  appear  of 
greater  value  than  it  really  is.  It  is  not  claimed  that  the  coloring 
matter  used  is  in  the  least  deleterious.  The  law  permits  its  use  to 
color  butter.  Counsel  rely  upon  People  v.  Snowberger,  113  Mich.  86. 
That  case  is  not  in  point.  The  gravamen  of  the  offense  there  was 
that  the  article  of  food  was  damaged,  inferior,  its  inferiority  concealed, 
and  it  was  made  to  appear  of  greater  value  than  it  really  was. 

This  brings  us  to  the  only  question  we  need  to  determine,  viz.:  Is 
the  title  to  the  act  broad  enough  to  include  the  sale  complained  of? 
Would  any  person  reading  the  title  to  the  bill  in  the  legislative  jour- 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  71 

nals,  or  elsewhere,  suppose  that  the  bill  would  make  criminal  an  act 
Tvhich  in  itself  was  entirely  harmless,  honest,  innocent  and  contained 
Tio  element  of  wrong-doing?  Or  that  it  would  change  the  well  known 
■definition  of  a  word  so  as  to  include  within  it  things  which  were  in 
no  sense  akin  to  it  and  which  could  only  be  included  in  it  by  the  most 
arbitrary  legislative  enactments?  Would  a  manufacturer  of,  or  deal- 
er in  butter  or  oleomargarine,  be  notified  by  the  title  that  the  harm- 
less coloring  of  either  was  not  only  to  be  prohibited  but  to  be  pun- 
ished by  fine  or  imprisonment  or  both?  There  can  be  but  one  ans- 
wer to  these  questions.  When  the  legislature  attempts  to  change 
<iefinitions  and  to  make  acts  criminal  which  per  se  are  innocent  and 
<;ontain  no  element  of  wrong,  there  must  be  something  in  the  title  to 
^how  such  purpose  or  object  under  Sec.  20,  Art.,  4  of  the  constitution. 
The  title  contains  not  even  an  intimation  that  an  entirely  innocent 
act  is  to  be  made  a  crime.     It  follows  that  this  part  of  the  act  is  void. 

Bissel  V.  Wayne  Probate  Judge,  58  Mich.,  237-. 
Northwestern  M'fg  Co.  v.  Wayne  Circuit  Judge,  Id.,  381. 
McKellar   v.    Detroit,   57   Mich.,    158. 

This  statute  is  assailed  as  unconstitutional  upon  other  grounds. 
This  disposal  of  the  case  renders  it  unnecessary  to  discuss  them.  How 
far  the  legislature  may  go,  under  the  police  power  inherent  in  the 
State  in  prohibiting  and  punishing  acts  which  in  themselves  are  per- 
fectly harmless,  would  be  an  interesting  subject  of  inquiry,  but  as  it 
is  not  necessary  to  a  disposal  of  the  case  we  decline  to  enter  upon  it. 

Judgment  affirmed.     The  other  justices  concurred. 


PEOPLE  V.  SKILLMAN. 

(Opinion  filed  March  4,  1902.) 

Pure    Food    Law — Section    5022    C.    L.    Construed — Action    Against 
Traveling  Salesman. 

A  traveling  salesman  for  a  wholesale  grocery  firm,  residing  out  of 
the  State,  took  an  order  in  this  State  for  pure  fruit  jelly  and  for- 
warded the  order  to  his  employers.  The  order  was  filled  with 
imitation  fruit  jelly.  Information  was  filed  against  the  sales- 
man under  section  5022  C.  L.,  regulating  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  imitation  fruit  jellies.  Held,  That  respondent  was  not 
guilty  of  violating  the  terms  of  the  statute. 


72  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


Error  to  the  circuit  court  for  Muskegon  County.  Fred.  J.  Russell, 
judge. 

Appeal  of  John  Skillman  from  a  conviction  under  the  pure  food 
law.     New  trial  ordered. 

Chas.  B.  Cross,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  for  the  people. 

Elliot  O.  Grosvenor  and  Smedley  &  Corwin,  for  respondent. 

Moore,  J.  :  An  information  was  filed  against  the  respondent  which, 
omitting  the  formal  parts,  reads  as  follows:  "That  one  John  Skill- 
man  heretofore,  to  wit;  on  the  sixteenth  day  of  September,  A.  D.  1901, 
at  the  city  of  Muskegon,  in  the  county  of  Muskegon  aforesaid,  did 
unlawfully  offer  for  sale  and  did  sell  to  Albert  Towle  a  large  quantity, 
to  wit :  a  certain  compound  under  the  name  of  Quince  Jelly  which  was 
then  and  there  adulterated  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  No.  193  of 
the  Public  Acts  of  the  State  of  Michigan  of  the  year  1895,  as  amended 
by  act  No.  118  of  the  Public  Acts  of  the  State  of  Michigan  of  the  year 
1897,  as  amended  by  act  No.  117  of  the  Public  Acts  of  the  State  of 
Michigan  of  the  year  1899,  in  this  to  wit:  That  said  compound  was 
then  and  there  made  and  composed  in  part  of  glucose,  starch  and  other 
substances,  and  was  then  and  there  colored  in  imitation  of  fruit  jelly 
contrary   to   the   form   of  the   statute." 

After  the  testimony  was  all  in,  a  motion  was  made  asking  the  judge, 
for  various  reasons,  to  direct  a  verdict  in  favor  of  respondent.  This 
motion  was  overruled.  The  case  was  submitted  to  the  jury  which 
returned  a  verdict  of  guilty. 

A  great  many  errors  are  assigned.  We  think  some  of  them  which 
we  shall  discuss  are  well  taken,  but  as  the  case  if  ever  tried  again, 
will  not  present  the  same  questions  now  presented  by  counsel  we  deem 
it  unnecessary  to  pass  upon  all  the  questions  argued  by  them  in  the 
briefs. 

To  sustain  the  case  of  the  people  testimony  in  substance  as  follows 
was  introduced:  It  was  shown  the  respondent  had  for  some  years 
been  a  traveling  salesman  in  the  employ  of  Reid,  Murdock  &  Com- 
pany of  Chicago,  that  he  solicited  an  order  from  Mr.  Towle,  a  grocer 
in  Muskegon,  that  Mr.  Towle  gave  him  an  order  for  a  case  of  assorted 
pure  fruit  jelly.  Mr.  Skillman  did  not  have  the  goods  with  him,  but 
reduced  the  order  to  writing  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Towle  at  his  store, 
and  forwarded  it  to  the  house  in  Chicago,     It  is  as  follows: 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  7S 


''Reid,  Murdock  &  Co.,  Chicago, 
Sept.  12,  1901. 

Name:     Albert  Towle. 

Town :     Muskegon. 

State:     Michigan. 

Ship  by  Barry  Line. 

Salesman,    Skillman. 

1  c  P.  F.  Jelly  Med.  Asst 100 

1  c  P.  F.  Jelly  Med.  Currant ".  • .  •       lOO 

60  days." 

''1  c  P.  F.  Jelly  Med.  Asst."  was  explained  to  mean  one  case  pure 
fruit  jelly  medium  size  assorted  glasses.  Mr.  Towle  testified  Mr. 
Skillman  claimed  it  was  pure  fruit  jelly  for  which  he  took  the  order, 
and  that  was  what  he  intended  to  buy.  It  was  not  shown  that  re- 
spondent had  anything  further  to  do  with  the  transaction  than  as 
above  stated.  Later  a  case  of  goods  was  received  from  Reid,  Mur- 
dock &  Company  and  testimony  was  given  tending  to  show  that  a 
tumbler  of  this  jelly  was  sold  to  Mr.  Bennett,  inspector  of  the  Dairy 
and  Food  Department  of  Michigan,  and  by  him  forwarded  to  the 
State  Analyst,  where  it  is  claimed  upon  analysis  it  was  shown  to  be 
a  mixture  of  fruit  juice,  glucose,  starch  and  coloring  matter.  L"^pon  the 
cross  examination  of  Mr.  Towle  the  following  occurred: 

"Q.  Did  you  give  Mr.  Skillman  more  than  one  order  for  fruit 
jelly  about  this  time?  A.  Well,  he  had  two  or  three  orders,  I  think, 
two   at   least. 

"Q.  Two  orders?  A.  One  of  them  might  have  been  ordered  by 
mail. 

"Q.  Now  you  received  two  consignments  of  fruit  jelly  from  the 
orders    you  had  given  to  Mr.  Skillman?     A.     I  think  so,  yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Upon  which  one  of  these  orders  did  you  receive  this  particular 
tumbler  of  jelly  that  you  afterwards  sold  to  Mr.  Bennett?  A.  I 
couldn't  say.  The  one  that  he  bought  was  out  of  that  order  I  think. 
(Witness  pointing  to  order  exhibited.) " 

The  defense  claimed  that  the  label  "pure  fruit  jelly"  placed  upon 
the  tumbler  analyzed  was  put  there  by  mistake.  It  was  their  claim 
that  Reid,  Murdock  &  Company  dealt  in  two  kinds  of  jelly,  those 
made  out  of  pure  fruit  and  those  made  in  imitation  of  pure  fruit,  and 
that  when  the  imitation  was  sold  in  Michigan  and  certain  other  states 
their  instructions  were  to  label  them  ''imitation,"  and  that  these 
instructions  were  furnished  in  writing  to  their  agents,  including  the 
respondent,  and  they  offered  testimony  tending  to  prove  this  claim. 
10 


74  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


The  written  instructions  were  also  offered  in  evidence,  but  with  the 
testimony  offered  were  excluded  by  the  court. 

Among  other  requests  offered  by  the  respondent  was  the  following: 

"Under  the  undisputed  evidence  in  this  case  there  is  nothing  to 
«how  that  the  respondent  offered  to  sell  any  jelly  in  violation  of  any 
statute  of  this  State,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  shown  that  respond- 
ent offered  to  sell  strictly  pure  fruit  jelly  and  sent  such  an  order  to 
Reid,  Murdock  &  Company  of  Chicago,  Illinois,  and  the  charge  in  the 
information  for  selling  and  offering  to  sell  adulterated  jelly  is  not 
sustained  by  the  evidence,  and  your  verdict  should  be  not  guilty." 

The  judge  refused  to  give  this  request,  but  charged  the  jury,  ''It 
is  recognized  by  the  legislators  and  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  many  of  the  wholesalers  that  are  doing  business  in  Michigan  are 
not  residents  of  this  State,  so  the  legislature  saw  fit  to  make  a  law 
where  a  man  solicited  the  sale  of  pure  jellies,  took  an  order  for  the 
«ale  of  pure  jellies,  and  in  response  to  that  order  and  offer,  a  different 
class  of  goods  was  furnished,  that  the  party  should  be  guilty  of  violat- 
ing this  particular  law.  In  other  words,  instead  of  that  order  or  offer 
^nd  the  furnishing  of  goods  delivered  to  the  party  by  a  party  who  might 
be  a  non-resident  of  the  State,  that  it  should  relate  to  the  man  who 
actually  made  the  offer,  the  man  who  actually  took  the  order  for  the 
furnishing  of  this  particular  article.  The  people  claim  that  this  is 
the  matter  in  which  this  defendant  here  is  liable." 

This  statement  of  the  law  is  sought  to  be  justified  by  People  v. 
Snowber^er,  113  Mich.  86,  and  People  v.  Grocer  Co.,  118  Mich.  604, 
71  N.  W.  497,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  449,  77  N.  W.  315.  A  reference  to 
these  case  will  show  that  the  respondent  in  ea6h  of  them  admitted 
making  the  sale  of  the  goods.  In  this  case  the  respondent  denies 
that  he  sold  any  goods  coming  within  the  provisions  of  the  statute. 
Giving  the  only  interpretation  to  the  testimony  as  it  appears  in  the 
record  which  can  be  fairly  given  to  it  shows  Mr.  Towle  was  solicited 
to  give  an  order  for  pure  fruit  jelly.  He  gave  such  an  order.  It  was 
reduced  to  writing  and  in  the  writing  the  jelly  was  described  as  pure 
fruit  jelly.  As  before  stated  the  only  connection  of  the  respondent 
with  the  transaction  as  shown  by  the  record  is  the  taking  of  an  order 
for  an  article  not  within  the  terms  of  the  statute  and  forwarding  it. 
This  does  not  constitute  an  offense.  It  might  as  well  be  urged  that 
if  a  traveling  salesman  takes  an  order  for  Michigan  beet  sugar  and 
forwards  a  written  order  for  such  sugar,  and  if  the  house,  instead  of 
iilling  the  order  as  written,  sends  glucose  with  a  label  upon  the  pack- 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  75 

:age  containing  it  calling  it  Michigan  beet  sugar  the  salesman  would 
be  guilty  of  an  offense.  This  we  do  not  understand  to  be  the  law. 
Upon  the  case  as  made  the  circuit  judge  should  have  directed  a  ver- 
dict of  not  guilty.     People  v.  Howard,  50  Mich.  242,  15  N.  W.,  101. 

The  verdict  is  set  aside  and  a  new  trial  ordered. 

Long,  J.,  did  not  sit#    The  other  justices  concurred. 


THE  PEOPLE  V.  MORSE. 

(Opinion  filed  June  3,  1902.) 

Pure  Food  Law — Sales  by  Agents — Criminal  Responsibility  for  Acts 

of  Principal. 

1.  A  traveling  salesman  who  in  good  faith  takes  an  order  for  "pure 
pepper,"  which  is  filled  by  his  principal  with  impure  pepper,  is 
not  guilty  of  a  violation  of  Public  Acts  1895,  No.  193,  forbidding 
the  sale  of  impure  foods. 

2.  Public  Acts  1895,  No.  193  (Pure  Food  Laws)  Sec.  17,  providing 
that  the  taking  of  an  order  for  future  delivery  of  any  of  the  ar- 
ticles covered  by  the  '  'act  shall  be  deemed  a  sale,  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  act,"  does  not  make  an  agent  absolutely  responsible 
for  the  acts  of  his  principal  in  filling  the  orders  taken  by  such 
agent,  and  an  order  by  the  agent  which  is  filled  by  the  principal 
as  an  entirety  may  be,  under  the  act,  a  sale  of  impure  food,  as 
to  the  principal,  and  yet  not  such  as  to  the  agentr 

Error  to  circuit  court,  Muskegon  county;  Fred  J.  Russell,  judge. , 

John  W.  Morse  was  convicted  of  a  violation  of  the  pure  food  law, 
and  he  brings  error.     Reversed. 

Underwood   &   Umlor,   for  appellant. 

Chas.  B.  Cross,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  and  George  S.  Lovelace, 
Assistant    Prosecuting    Attorney    for    the    People. 

Hooker,  J.:  The  brief  filed  on  behalf  of  the  people  states  that  the 
-case  is  similar  to  that  of  The  People  v.  Skillman,  8  Detroit  Legal 
News,  1090,  ^9  N.  W.  330,  and  in  effect  concedes  that  the  case  must 
be  reversed  if  we  adhere  to  our  former  decision. 

The  defendant  took  an  order  for  some  pepper,  as  and  for  pure  pep- 
per, to  be  shipped  to  a  dealer  in  Muskegon,  by  defendant's  principal, 
ii  wholesaler  in  Chicago.     The  pepper  when  sent  was  not  pure. 


76  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


It  is  insisted  that  the  Skillman  case  is  at  variance  with  the  weight 
of  authority  elsewhere,  and  contrary  to  our  own  cases,  in  which  it 
is  said  that  we  have  held  that  a  guilty  intent  on  the  part  of  a  vendor, 
is  not  essential  to  an  offense,  under  the  pure  food  law  (Publig  Acts 
1895,  No.  193).  It  is  further  said  that  in  the  decision  in  thie  Skill- 
man  case,  section  seventeen  of  the  act  must  have  been  overlooked 
or  considered  unconstitutional. 

The  transaction  in  which  the  order  was  taken  did  not  involve  an 
immediate  delivery  of  pepper,  then  and  there  present.  It  is  not  shown 
that  the  sample,  if  there  was  one,  was  the  same  as  the  pepper  subse- 
quently sent,  or  that  it  was  in  the  least  impure.  If  it  be  conceded 
that  the  agent  acted  in  good  faith,  and  we  understand  that  it  is  not 
questioned,  he  took  an  order  for  pure  goods,  and  in  doing  that  cer- 
tainly committed  no  offense.  It  is  now  urged  that  the  exigencies 
of  the  enforcement  of  this  law  are  such,  that  we  should  hold  that  this 
innocent  and  lawful  action,  inay  be  made  a  crime  by  the  subsequent 
act  of  the  principal,  either  intentional  or  inadvertent,  in  departing 
from,  instead  of  performing  the  contract  which  his  agent  had  innocent- 
ly made.  We  think  this  is  not  so,  and  we  are  also  of  the  opinion  that 
this  does  not  necessarily  do  violence  to  section  seventeen.  This  trans- 
action, as  an  entirety,  may  have  been  a  sale  of  impure  pepper  under 
the  statute  as  to  the  principal,  and  not  as  to  the  agent.  If  the  order 
had  been  taken,  with  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  agent  of  a  practice- 
to  send  impure  pepper  on  such  orders,  a  different  question  would  be 
presented. 

The  judgment  is  reversed  and  a  new  trial  ordered. 

Long,   J.,    did   not   sit.     The   other   justices   concurred. 


PEOPLE  V.  ROTTER. 

(Opinion  filed  June  24, 1902.) 

Food — Oleomargarine     Act — Constitutional     Law — Statutes — Title — 

Object. 

1.  Public  Acts  1901,  No.  22,  entitled  "An  act  to  prevent  deception 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  imitation  butter,"  which  in  addi- 
tion to  forbidding  sale  of  imitation  butter,  prohibits  sales  of  col- 
ored oleomargarine,  is  not,  on  that  account,  open  to  the  objection 
that  the  object  is  not  expressed  in  the  title,  as  required  by  Const. 
Art.   4,  Sec.   20. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  77 

2.     The  act  is  not  in  contravention  of  the  fourteenth  amendment 

of  the  federal  constitution. 
S.     The  act  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power. 

Error  to  circuit  court,  Emmet  county;  Frank  Shepard,  judge. 

George  W.  Rotter  was  convicted  of  selling  colored  oleomargarine, 
and    brings    error.     Affirmed. 

Smedley  &  Corwin,  Sears,  Meagher  &  Whitney  (James  F.  Meagher 
and  Kay  Wood,  of  counsel),  for  appellant. 

Horace  M.  Oren,  Attorney  General,  and  Matthew  F.  Guinon, 
Prosecuting  Attorney  for  the  People. 

Hooker,  C.  J.:  At  its  last  session,  the  legislature  passed  an  act 
under  the  title,  '  'An  act  to  prevent  deception  in  the  manufacture  and 
sale  of  imitation  butter."     Public  Acts   1901,   No.   22. 

Section  1  of  said  act  provides  that: 

"No  person,  by  himself  or  his  agents  or  servants,  shall  render  or 
manufacture,  sell,  offer  for  sale,  expose  for  sale,  or  have  in  his  pos- 
session with  intent  to  sell,  any  article,  product  or  compound  made 
wholly  or  in  part  out  of  any  fat,  oil  or  oleaginous  substance  or  com- 
pound thereof,  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from 
the  same,  which  shall  be  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  produced  from 
pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same :  Provided,  That  noth- 
ing in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale 
of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form,  and  in  such  man- 
ner as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from  color- 
ation or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter." 

Section  2  prescribes  a  penalty  for  the  violation  of  the  act. 

The  defendant  was  a  grocer  in  Emmet  county,  and  is  shown  to 
have  sold  a  package  of  oleomargarine,  which  by  an  analysis  was  prov- 
en to  have  contained  artificial  coloring  matter,  and  that  said  oleo- 
margarine was  not  made  wholly  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream 
from  the  same,  and  that  it  was  made  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter, 
produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same.  The  court 
was  asked  to  direct  a  verdict  of  not  guilty  upon  the  grounds: 

1st.  That  the  object  of  the  act  was  not  expressed  in  the  title,  as 
required  by  section  20  of  article  4  of  the  constitution  of    this    State; 

2d.  That  the  act  violates  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  article  6,  section  32,  of  the  con- 
stitution of  this  State: 


78  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


3d.     That  it  was  not  within  the  pohce  power  of  the  State. 

The  evidence  conclusively  shows  that  no  deception  was  used  im 
selling  the  oleomargarine,  and  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  there 
was  any  harmful  ingredient  therein,  but  that,  on  the  contrary  there 
was  not  such  ingredient.  The  defendant  was  convicted,  and  the- 
case  is  here  on  exceptions  before  sentence. 

It  is  contended  that  the  title  to  the  act  indicates  that  the  act  was- 
designed  to  prevent  deception  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  imita- 
tion butter,  while  the  act  attempts  to  go  further  and  prevent  all  sales^ 
of  such  colored  oleomargarine. 

If  oleomargarine  colored  yellow,  closely  resembles  yellow  butter,, 
made  from  milk  or  cream,  it  cannot  reasonably  be  said  not  to  resemble 
or  imitate  yellow  butter.  Butter  is  a  well  known  commodity.  From 
time  immemorial  it  has  had  but  one  origin,  viz. :  from  the  churning 
of  milk  or  cream.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  possibility  of  mak- 
ing a' product  from  other  compounds  than  milk  or  cream  that  shall 
closely  resemble  or  be  chemically  identical  with  butter,  the  world 
has  but  one  understanding  of  what  is  meant  by  the  word  "butter," 
and  we  must  assume  that  such  is  the  sense  in  which  our  legislature 
used  the  term.     Compiled  laws,  Sec.  50.  Sub.  1. 

A  fair  inference  from  this  statute  is  that  the  legislature  undertook 
to  prevent  deception,  by  preventing  the  sale  of  any  yellow  oleomar- 
garine, and  it  undertook  to  accomplish  this  by  the  most  effective 
means,  viz.:  by  prohibiting  the  coloring  of  oleomargarine  yellow,, 
thereby  avoiding  the  embarrassment  which  would  otherwise  arise 
from  the  necessity  of  proving  in  each  case,  that  deceit  was  used  in 
selling  it,  as  and  for  butter.  We  think  this  is  fairly  within  the  title,, 
whatever  must  be  said  of  the  other  points  raised.  We  are  referred 
to  the  case  of  N.  W.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chambers,  58  Mich.  381,  25  N.  W. 
372,  55  Am.  Rep.  693,  as  conclusive  upon  this  question,  in  which 
case  it  is  said  that  "all  that  could  be  done  under  such  a  title  would 
be  to  prohibit  and  prevent  sale  of  such  articles  under  false  pretenses." 
We  are  of  the  opinion  that  this  language  is  too  restrictive,  and  that 
it  is  at  variance  with  the  settled  doctrine  in  this  State,  that  any  pro- 
vision, naturally  calculated  to  accomplish  the  object  expressed  in. 
the  title  may  be  included  in  the  act. 

See: 

Soukup  V.  Van  Dyke,  109  Mich.  681. 

People  V.  Worden  Grocer  Co.,  118  Mich.  607. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  79- 

The  case  cited  was  rightly  disposed  of  upon  another  ground,  and 
it  is  possible  that  the  language  above  quoted  should  be  considered 
a  dictum.  Moreover  the  cases  are  distinguishable  for  whereas,  that 
act  attempted  to  prevent  all  sales  of  imitation  butter,  and  was  there- 
fore perhaps  inconsistent  with  the  title,  which  apparently  contem- 
plated lawful  sales,  the  statute  under  consideration  in  the  present 
case,  does  not  prohibit  sales  of  oleomargarine,  which  is  not  tainted 
M'ith  the  prohibited  ingredients. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  other  points  at  length  for  the  reason 
that  the  uniform  trend  of  judicial  opinion  is  that  such  laws  are  valid. 

State  V.  Meyers,  42  W.  Va.  825;  35  L.  R.  A.  844. 

New  Hampshire  v.  Marshall,  I.  L.  R.  A.  51. 

Powell  V.  Penna,  127  U.  S.  678. 

People  V.  Armsberg,   105  N.  Y.   113. 

Butler  V.   Chambers,  36  Minn.   69. 

People  V.  Worden  Grocer  Co.,   118  Mich.  604. 

People  V.  Armsberg,   105  N.  Y.   123. 

State  V.  Crescent  Creamery  Co.,  86  N.  W.  107. 

State  V.  Ball,  46  Atl.  Rep.  50. 

Commonwealth  v.  Van  Dyke,  13  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  484. 

Commonwealth  v.  McCann,  14  Pa.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  221. 

Armour  Packing  Co.  v.  Snyder,  84  Fed.  Rep.  136. 

Cap.  City  Dairy  Co.  v.  State,  22  Sup,  Ct.  Rep.  120. 

Wright  V.  State,  41  Atl.  Rep.  795. 

Wq  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  legislature  had  the  power  to  pass 
this  law,  and  its  wisdom  of  policy  is  not  for  our  consideration. 

The  judgment  is  affirmed  and  the  court  directed  to  sentence  the 
defendant. 

Long,  J.,  did  not  sit.     The  other  justices  concurred. 


PEOPLE  V.  PHILLIPS. 

(Opinion  filed  Sept.  17.  1902.) 

Food — Adulteration — Statutes — Oleomargarine — Yellow  Butter. 

The  phrase  "yellow  butter,"  is  used  in  Act  No.  22,  Acts  1901,. 
makmg  it  an  offense  to  sell  or  offer  for  sale  oleomargarine  colored 
in  imitation  of  "yellow  butter"  made  from  pure  milk  or  cream, 
of  the  same,  means  any  butter  produced  from  pure  milk  or  cream, 
thereof  having   a   "perceptible   shade"   of  yellow. 


so  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


Error  to  circuit  court,  Kalamazoo  county;  John  W.  Adams,  Judge. 

John  W.  PhiUips  was  convicted  of  seUing  oleomargarine,  in  viola- 
tion of  Act  No.  22,  Acts  1901,  and  he  brings  error.     Affirmed. 

Frank  E.  Knappen  and  E.  M.  Irish,  for  appellant. 

Sheridan  F.  Master,  Prosecuting  Attorney,  and  Dallas  Boudeman, 
for  the  people.  • 

Moore,  J.  The  respondent  was  convicted  of  having  on  hand  with 
intent  to  sell,  and  offering  for  sale  oleomargarine,  colored  in  imita- 
tion of  yellow  butter,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Act  No.  22  of  the 
legislature,  passed  at  the  session  of    1901. 

It  is  claimed  by  respondent  this  law  is  unconstitutional  and  is  an 
invalid  law.  That  question  was  decided  in  the  very  recent  case  of 
People  V.  Rotter,  against  the  contention  of  respondent,  and  need 
not  be  discussed  here.  It  is  urged  as  a  matter  of  defense,  and  we 
quote  from  the  brief  of  counsel,  '  'that  the  statute  is  only  aimed  against 
the  imitation  of  a  substance  which  the  legislature  recognizes  as  yellow 
butter,  and 

1.  The  court  should  take  judicial  notice  that  all  butter  with  a  trace 
of  yellow  in  it  is  not  the  yellow  butter  of  commerce. 

2.  That  if  this  is  not  true  as  a  proposition  of  judicial  notice, 
and  the  court  cannot  know  it,  then  the  respondent  should  have  been 
allowed  to  prove,  if  he  could,  that  there  was  such  a  usage  of  commerce. 

3.  That  the  statute  is  vague  and  indefinite  in  not  defining  the 
elements  of  the  statutory  crime  it  attempts  to  carve  out  of  an  act 
innocent  per  se,  in  that  it  gives  no  standard  for  determining  what  the 
color  of  yellow  butter  is  that  is  not  to  be  imitated. " 

The  trial  judge  charged  the  jury  upon  that  branch  of  the  case  as 
follows. 

"It  is  not  necessary  in  this  case  for  the  people  to  bave  proved  that 
the  respondent  himself  colored  the  oleomargarine  if  you  find  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  colored.  The  offense  is  just  as  com- 
plete, so  far  as  this  is  concerned,  if  the  respondent  purchased  oleomar- 
garine colored,  as  above  indicated.  The  offense  as  above  stated  con- 
sists of  having  the  oleomargarine  colored  as  before  indicated,  in  his 
possession,  with  intent  to  sell  the  same,  or  in  exposing  it  for  sale;  and 
if  the  respondent  sold  it  in  the  same  condition  as  he  bought  it,  there 
would  be  no  defense  in  this  case.  The  respondent,  gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  is  not  charged  in  this  information  with  selling  this  article;  and 
if  you  find  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  he  sold  it  as  claimed  by  the  peo- 
ple in  the  testimony  offered,  you  may  consider  this  fact  on  the  ques- 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  SI 

tion  of  whether  respondent  had  or  did  not  have  the  article  in  his  pos- 
session for  the  purpose  of  selling  it.  And  you  must  not  consider  it 
.  for  any  other  purpose.  If  you  find  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that 
respondent  did  sell  the  article  mentioned  in  the  information  to  the 
parties  claimed  by  the  people,  that  would  satisfy  the  statute  upon 
the  question  of  intent  to  sell.  It  is  not  necessary  in  this  case  to  entitle 
the  people  to  a  conviction,  that  the  oleomargarine  should  have  been 
colored  to  represent  any  particular  kind  of  yellow  butter.  That  is, 
such  yellow  butter  as  the  statute  mentions,  and  as  I  have  indicated 
to  you  the  statute  mentions.  If  the  coloring  was  put  into  it,  and 
by  using  such  coloring  the  oleomargarine  was  in  imitation  of  light 
yellow  butter,  such  as  the  statute  mentions,  that  is,  yellow  butter 
produced  from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  the 
offense  is  committed  just  the  same,  as  if  it  had  been  colored  to  repre- 
sent darker  yellow  butter.  If  you  find  it  to  have  been  oleomargarine 
and  was  colored  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  in  imitation  of  any  kind 
of  yeUow  butter,  that  would  satisfy  the  statute  upon  the  requirement 
of  the  question  of  color.  Yellow  butter  I  define  to  be  any  butter 
produced  from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same  having 
a  yellow  color. 

''It  is  necessary  in  order  for  the  jury  to  convict  the  respondent, 
for  you  to  find  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  article  in  the 
package  sold  was  colored  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  produced  from 
pure,  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same.  If  you  find  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  under  the  testimony  in  this  case  that  there  was  some 
coloring  matter  in  this  article,  still  if  you  find  that  there  was  not  enough 
coloring  matter  in  this  article  to  cause  it  to  look  like  yellow  butter 
having  a  perceptible  shade  of  yellow,  said  butter  having  been  produced 
from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  then  you  must  ac- 
quit. But  if  you  find  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  there  was  coloring 
matter  in  said],  article  and  sufficient  coloring  matter  m  said  article 
and  sufficient  coloring  matter  therein  to  make  it  look  like  yellow  but- 
ter, having  any  perceptible  shade  of  yellow,  said  butter  having  been 
made  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  that  would 
be  sufficient  so  far  as  the  requirement  of  the  statute  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  coloration  is  concerned." 

We  think  this  was  a  proper  construction  of  the  language  used  in  the 
statute. 

The  conviction  is  affirmed  and  the  case  remanded  for  further  pro- 
ceedings. 

Long,  J.,  did  not  sit.     The  other  justices  concurred. 
11 


82  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


PEOPLE  V.  JENNINGS. 

(Opinion  filed  April  7,  1903.) 

Adulteration  of  Food — Omission  of  Ingredients — Coloring  Matter — 
Remarks  of  Court. 

1.  There  not  having  been  incorporated  in  the  pure  food  law  of  1895 

(Public  Acts  of  1895,  p.  358,  No.  193),  any  specific  formula  for 
the  manufacture  of  lemon  extract,  it  is  proper  to  resort  to  the 
United  States  Pharmacopoeia  formula  to  determine  of  what 
lemon  extract  consists. 

2.  The  pure  food  law  of  1895  (Public  Acts  1895,  p.  358,  No.  193), 
is  not  intended  to  prevent  manufacturers  of  articles  of  food  from 
improving  the  same,  so  long  as  no  infringement  of  the  law  or 
spirit  of  the  act  defining  adulteration  takes  place. 

3.  The  provisions  of  Comp.  Laws,  Sec.  5012,  that  an  article  shall, 
be  deemed  adulterated,  ''second,  if  any  inferior  or  cheaper  sub- 
stance or  substances  have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in  part 
for  it;  third,  if  any  valuable  or  necessary  constituent  or  ingredi- 
ent has  been  wholly  or  in  part  abstracted  from  it" — should  be 
read  together,  and  the  provision  first  recited  construed  as  prohibit- 
ing the  substitution  for  an  essential  ingredient  of  any  cheaper 
or  inferior  substances. 

4.  Comp.  Laws,  Sec.  5012,  declaring  that  an  article  shaU  be  deemed 
adulterated,  "sixth,  if  it  is  colored  *  *  *  whereby  damage 
or  inferiority  is  concealed,  or  if  by  any  means  it  is  made  to  appear 
better  or  of  greater  value  than  it  really  is,"  does  not  preclude 
the  use  of  coloring  matter  not  injurious  to  health  in  any  way. 

5.  It  is  improper  for  the  court  to  refer  to  expert  _  testimony  as- 
"boughten  testimony." 

Exceptions  from  Circuit  Court,  Muskegon  County;  Fred  J.  Russell,. 
Judge. 

Charles  W.  Jennings  was  convicted  of  violating  the  pure  food  law^ 
and  brings  exceptions.     Reversed. 

Charles  A.  Blair,  Attorney  General,  and  Charles  B.  Cross,  Prosecut- 
ing Attorney.     (Cross,  Lovelace  and  Ross,  of  counsel),  for  the  People. 
Knappen,  Kleinhans  &  Knappen  and  L.  N.  Keating,  for  defendant.^ 

Montgomery,  J.  This  is  a  prosecution  under  the  Pure  Food  Law,, 
so  called.  The  defendant  was  convicted  under  an  information  charg- 
ing him  with  selling  a  compound  as  a  lemon  extract  which  was  adul- 
terated within  the  meaning  of  Act  No.  193.,  P.  A.  1895,  and  was  a 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  83 


compound  in  imitation  of  extract  of  lemon.  The  respondent  was 
cohvicted  and  brings  the  case  up  on  exceptions  before  sentence. 

The  evidence  on  the  trial  introduced  by  the  defendant  tended  to 
show  that  lemon  oil  contains  from  three  to  ten  per  cent  citral,  so- 
called,  and  upwards  of  ninety  per  cent  of  so-called  turpenes;  that 
these  turpenes  represent  the  oil  property;  that  they  are  in  reality 
the  oil  itself  freed  from  the  citral;  that  citral  is  the  principal  flavor- 
ing and  odor-bearing  property  of  lemon  oil;  that  the  tendency  of 
turpenes  in  the  oil  of  lemon  is  to  deteriorate  or  become  rancid  by  long 
standing,  and  that  because  of  this  the  extract  or  spirits  of  lemon  in 
which  turpenes  appear  in  usual  quantities  become  turpentiney,  both 
in  smell  and  taste,  and  that  for  this  reason  it  is  undesirable  to  have  tur- 
penes present;  that  the  turpenes  have  a  biting  taste,  easily  develop- 
ing a  turpentine  taste,  not  the  true  flavor  of  the  lemon  fruit.  There 
was  also  testimony  tending  to  show  that  this  fact  created  a  demand 
for  turpeneless  oils  and  that  turpeneless  lemon  oils  had  been  manu- 
factured and  sold  commercially  for  a  considerable  time. 

On  the  part  of  the  prosecution  the  testimony  of  the  chemist  of*the 
Pure  Food  Department  was  to  the  effect  that  taking  as  a  standard 
of  extract  of  lemon  the  spirits  of  lemon  as  defined  by  the  United  States 
Pharmacopoeia  formula  that  the  extract  produced  by  the  respondent 
showed  no  lemon  oil  present.  It  further  appears  that  spirits  of  lemon 
made  according  to  the  pharmacopoeia  formula  would  contain  from 
25-100  to  35-100  of  one  per  cent  of  citral.  It  also  appeared  that  30" 
per  cent  of  alcohol  appeared  in  the  product  made  by  respondent,  and 
that  according  to  the  pharmacopoeia  formula  80  per  cent  was  used, 
and  that  it  cost  less  to  make  the  extract  using  but  30  per  cent  of  alco- 
hol than  if  80  per  cent  was  used.  It  was  also  shown  that  a  trace  of 
coal  tar  dye  was  found  in  the  extract  made  by  respondent,  but  it  was 
conceded  that  there  was  nothing  whatever  injurious  in  the  extract 
as  prepared  by  Mr.  Jennings.  The  extract  sold  by  respondent  was 
made  by  what  is  known  as  the  shaking  out  process,  the  purpose  being 
to  make  an  extract  that  contains  no  oil  and  as  little  alcohol  as  possible, 
a  product  that  simply  contains  the  flavoring  properties  of  the  lemon 
oil  without  the  turpenes.  This  system  has  been  employed  by  Mr. 
Jennings  and  by  other  manufacturers  for  the  past  three  years;  and 
it  is  claimed  that  all  the  elements  and  properties  of  lemon  oil  remained 
except  the  turpenes,  and  the  testimony  tended  to  show  that  the  com- 
plete flavoring  qualities  are  extracted  by  this  process. 


84  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


The  circuit  judge  charged  the  jury  as  follows: 

"In  1895  the  Legislature  of  this  State  thought  it  wise  to  pass  a 
law  relative  to  the  adulterations  of  food  and  food  products.  Perhaps 
there  may  have  been  some  amendments  since  that  time,  but  that  was 
the  foundation  of  the  law.  That  law  covers  lemon  extract  as  it  cov- 
ers all  other  products  that  are  sold  on  the  market.  It  seems  at  the 
time  the  law  was  passed  and  since  that  time  there  hasn't  been — there 
isn't  incorporated  within  that  law  any  special  formula  for  the  manu- 
facture of  lemon  extract.  Now,  we  can  hardly  say,  gentlemen  of 
the  jury,  that  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  that  law  that  the  legisla- 
ture didn't  have  some  recognized  and  defined  standard  by  which  these 
essences  or  extracts  should  be  governed  or  controlled.  I  think  it 
would  be  hardly  fair  to  the  legislature  to  claim  that  there  wasn't  a 
standard  they  had  in  their  mind  at  that  time,  and  for  the  purposes 
of  this  case  I  will  instruct  you  gentlemen,  that  at  that  time  and  at 
this  time  this  standard  that  appears  here  in  the  United  States  Pharm- 
acopoeia is  the  standard  recognized  by  the  legislators  of  this  State 
and  the  one  to  which — the  one  that  is  in  force  so  far  as  it  applies  to 
the  Pure  Food  Law  of  this  State  with  reference  to  that  particular 
product.  And  if  this  lemon  extract  is  manufactured  in  conflict  with 
that  formula  as  I  shall  hereafter  call  your  attention  to  it,  and  vou 
should  find  from  the  evidence,  why  it  would  be  your  duty  to  convict 
the  defendant  here. 

"By  that  formula  it  appears  that  it  is  necessary  to 'have  five  per 
cent  of  lemons  oil  in  the  lemon  extract  and  that  lemon  oil  shall  be  cut 
by  a  sufficient  quantity  of  alcohol  to  perform  that  act.  Of  course, 
you  know  that  that  means  in  common  parlance  it  should  dissolve  the 
oil.  In  addition  to  that,  as  the  evidence  tends  to  show  in  this  case, 
after  those  things  are  put  together,  the  fluid,  whatever  it  might  be, 
would  be  nearly  the  color  of  water.  As  coloring  there  may  be  or  should 
be  flve  per  cent  of  lemon  rind,  and  those  ingredients  when  added  to- 
gether would  be  lemon  extract,  and  that,  gentlemen,  will  be  the  stand- 
ard as  appHed  to  the  Pure  Food  Law  of  this  State.  Now,  gentlemen, 
I  don't  mean  by  that  statement  that  lemon  extract  cannot  be  manu- 
factured by  any  other  process  except  by  that  to  which  I  have  called 
your  attention.  I  don't  mean  that.  It  is  the  claim  of  the  defendant 
here  that  he  has  discovered  a  process  by  which  be  can  manufacture 
lemon  extract  containing  all  of  the  qualities  that  lemon  extract  manu- 
factured according  to  that  formula  would  possess  and  not  have  en- 
tirely all  of  the  ingredients  in  the  flrst  instance  that  are  provided  in 
the  formula.  And  as  I  view  this  case,  gentlemen,  that  is  one  of  the 
important  propositions  in  connection  with  this  case — that,  and  the 
question  of  coloring — in  the  judgment  of  the  court  is  the  case,  and  that 
all  of  the  testimony  in  the  case  here  revolves  itself  about  those  two 
propositions. 

"It  is  the  claim  of  the  defendant,  as  I  say,  he  has  discovered  a  pro- 
cess by  which  he  can  produce  in  this  lemon  extract  all  the  qualities 
that  would  be  produced  by  adding  alcohol  and  lemon  oil  together, 
and  that  manufacturing  it  by  that  means  he  produces  it  chemically 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  85 


by  taking  a  larger  quantity  of  lemon  oil  and  extracting  certain  parts 
of  it.  Now,  gentlemen,  if  you  find  and  are  satisfied  by  the  evidence 
in  this  case  that  after  this  lemon  extract  was  manufactured  as  de- 
fendant here  claims  he  did  manufacture  it  possesses  all  the  qualities 
in  strength  and  otherwise  that  it  would  possess  if  manufactured  ac- 
cording to  this  formula,  he  is  not  guilty  under  this  law.  That  is, 
he  is  not  guilty  of  manufacturing  an  impure  article,  unless  there  are 
certain  other  articles  that  enter  into  the  case  to  which  I  call  your 
attention.  ■  As  I  say,  in  the  first  instance,  it  is  claimed  that  accord- 
ing to  the  formula  it  should  be  alcohol  and  five  per  cent  of  lemon  oil. 
Now  if  by  some  other  process  he  can  manufacture  from  the  lemon 
oil  and  alcohol  a  product  that  would  contain  all  of  the  elements  that 
these  two  elements  would  contain  if  so  mixed,  he  would  not  be  guilty 
so  far  that  would  be  lemon  extract  except  the  color  of  it. 

'  'It  is  conceded  here  by  all  parties  in  interest,  I  think,  that  the  only 
object  of  the  lemon  peefis  to  produce  coloring.  But  there  is  another 
element  to  which  the  prosecuting  attorney  has  called  our  attention. 
The  evidence  tends  to  show,  gentlemen,  that  if  this  product  is  pro- 
duced as  claimed  here  on  the  part  of  the  defendant,  that  after  pro- 
duction by  this  process  that  the  product  would  be  nearly  white.  As 
I  say,  if  it  contained  all  of  the  elements  of  lemon  extract,  1  don't  think 
he  would  be  guilty  under  this  law,  and  if  you  are  so  satisfied,  of  course, 
at  that  point  it  would  be  your  duty  to  find  a  verdict  of  not  guilty  un- 
less there  is  some  other  matter  in  which  he  has  violated  this  law. 

"There  is  another  provision  of  this  Pure  Food  Law  that  provides 
that  ingredients  shall  not  be  colored.  In  this  case  it  appears  that 
after  this  fluid  substance  is  produced  which  he  claims  is  just  the  same 
as  produced  under  this  formula,  that  he  desires  to  change  it  to  a  lem- 
on color.  In  other  Avcfrds,  he  puts  in  an  ingredient  which  he  claims 
would  produce  the  same  effect  as  this  lemon  rind.  Wha-t  is  the  object, 
gentlemen,  or  what  was  the  object  of  Mr.  Jennings  adding  this  color? 
If  the  object  was  by  any  means  to  make  it  appear  better  or  of  greater 
value  than  it  really  is;  if  that  was  the  object  in  adding  that  product 
of  course  it  is  your  duty  without  any  question  to  find  this  defendant 
guilty,  because  he  hadn't  any  right  to  add  that  kind  of  a  product  or 
any  other  kind  of  a  product  to  this  fluid  which  he  had  produced  and 
sell  it  for  lemon  extract,  because  that  is  a  direct  violation  of  one  of 
the  provisions  of  this  Pure  Food  Law." 

We  think  this  charge  presents  fairly  three  questions  for  consider- 
ation: First,  whether  the  pharmacopoeia  formula  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  defining  lemon  extract;  second,  if  so,  whether  an  omission 
of  ingredients  not  essential  to  its  purposes  as  a  food  product  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  statute;  third,  whether  the  instruction  relative  to  the  addi- 
tion of  coloring  matter  should  be  sustained. 

The  statute  defining  what  shall  be  deemed  adulteration,  so  far  as 
it  relates  to  this  case,  declares  that  an  article  shall  be  deemed  adul- 
terated when:     "First,   if  any   substance   or  substances  have  been 


86  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


mixed  with  it,  so  as  to  lower'  or  depreciate  or  injuriously  affect  its 
quality,  strength  or  purity;  second,  if  any  inferior  or  cheaper  sub- 
stance or  substances  have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in  part  for  it; 
third,  if  any  valuable  or  necessary  constituent  or  ingredient  has  been 
wholly  or  in  part  abstracted  from  it;  fourth,  if  it  is  an  imitation  of, 
or  is  sold  under  the  name  of  another  article;  *  *  *  sixth,  if  it 
is  colored,  coated,  polished  or  powdered  whereby  damage  or  inferiority 
is  concealed,  or  if  by  any  means  it  is  made  to  appear  better  or  of  great- 
er value  than  it  really  is;  seventh,  if  it  contains  any  added  substance 
or  ingredient  which  is  poisonous  or  injurious  to  health."  Compiled 
Laws,  Sec.  5012. 

We  are  agreed  with  the  circuit  judge  that  in  referring  to  articles 
of  food  and  to  protect  the  users  thereof  the  legislature  must  have  had 
in  view  some  standard,  and  as  lemon  essence  or  lemon  extract  had 
therefore  acquired  a  well-defined  meaning  we  incline  to  the  view  that 
it  is  proper  to  resort  to  the  pharmacopoeia  formula  for  the  purpose 
of  determining  what  lemon  extract  consists  of.  Does  it  follow  from 
this  that  the  legislature  intended  to  prohibit  improvement  in  the 
manufacture  of  lemon  extract?  If  a  means  should  be  discovered 
by  which  a  larger  percentage  of  the  flavoring  quantity  of  the  lemon 
might  be  extracted  would  it  be  an  infraction  of  this  law  that  the  manu- 
facturer should  use  such  larger  proportion  of  the  essential  ingred- 
ient of  the  lemon  extract?  We  think  not.  We  think  it  is  open  to 
manufacturers  to  improve  a  common  article  of  food  so  long  as  no  in- 
fringement of  the  law  or  spirit  of  the  act  defining  what  shall  be  deemed 
adulteraiton  takes  place.  According  to  the  proofs  offered  by  the 
defendant  it  is  very  clear  in  the  present  case  no  substance  or  sub- 
stances have  been  mixed  with  this  extract  so  as  to  lower  or  depre- 
ciate or  injuriously  affect  its  quality,  strength  or  purity. 

As  to  the  second  condition  which  amounts  to  adulteration  the  case 
is  not  so  clear.  This  provides  that  if  any  inferior  or  cheaper  sub- 
stance or  substances  have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in  part  for  it, 
that  it  shall  amount  to  adulteration.  We  think,  however,  this  pro- 
vision should  be  read  in  connection  with  the  succeeding  one,  to-wit: 
''If  any  valuable  or  necessary  constituent  or  ingredient  has  been 
wholly  or  in  part  abstracted  from  it."  So  construed  the  provision 
prohibiting  the  substitution  of  any  inferior  or  cheaper  substance, 
wholly  or  in  part,  for  it  means  the  substitution  for  an  essential  in- 
gredient of  such  cheaper  or  inferior  substance.  Now  if  it  be  a  fact, 
as  the  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  respondent  tends  to  show,  that 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  87 

it  is  a  positive  advantage  to  exclude  the  turpene  wholly  from  the 
extract  and  to  lessen  the  quantity  of  alcohol  used,  then  the  essential 
ingredients  of  lemon  extract  have  not  had  substituted  for  them  any- 
thing inferior  or  cheaper.  We  are  aware  that  this  view  of  the  law 
may  make  it  more  difficult  to  establish  the  individual  case,  but  as 
-the  statute  is  a  penal  statute  it  should  receive  a  strict  construction. 

It  follows  from  the  views  above  expressed  that  the  instruction  of 
the  learned  circuit  judge  was  erroneous  inasmuch  as  the  jury  were 
told  in  effect  that  if  any  ingredient  of  lemon  essence  as  defined  by 
the  pharmacopoeia  was  wanting  in  this  extract  sold  by  the  respond- 
ent that  there  should  be  a  conviction.  We  think  the  instruction 
should  have  been  that  if  the  lemon  extract  sold  by  respondent  con- 
tained all  the  ingredients  and  in  quantities  such  as  prescribed  by  the 
pharmacopoeia  which  are  adapted  to  use  as  food,  and  that  nothing 
was  eliminated  except  such  ingredients  as  could  be  dispensed  with 
without  injury  to  the  product  as  a  food  product  there  was  no  viola- 
tion of  the  statute. 

The  only  other  provision  of  the  statute  involved  is  the  sixth,  which 
in  effect  prohibits  coloring  the  article  produced  whereby  damage  or 
inferiority  is  concealed.  The  instruction  upon  this  branch  of  the  law 
was  also  erroneous  if  we  are  correct  in  our  view  of  the  main  ques- 
tion. The  elimination  of  non-essential  ingredients  from  the  extract 
<3ertainly  does  not  show  damage  or  inferiority,  and  as  the  conceded 
facts  are  that  the  coloring  matter  employed  was  not  injurious  to  health 
in  any  way  this  provision  has  no  application. 

The  other  questions  discussed  do  not  require  special  mention.  It 
may  be  noted  in  passing  that  the  circuit  judge  in  referring  to  the  tes- 
timony of  expert  witnesses  spoke  of  it  as  boughten  testimony.  We 
think  this  expression  was  unfortunate.  While  it  is  proper  for  the 
jury  to  take  into  account  the  fact  that  expert  witnesses  are  employed 
^t  an  extra  compensation  paid  them,  the  implication  that  the  extra 
compensation  necessarily  amounts  to  a  purchase  of  their  testimony 
is  hardly  warranted;  while  the  jury  may  consider  this  fact  as  bear- 
ing on  their  credibility,  it  is  not  proper  that  the  court  should  intimate 
a,n  opinion  of  that  character. 

The  judgment  should  be  reversed,  and  a  new  trial  ordered. 

The  other  Justices  concurred. 


STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


BENNETT  v.  CARR. 

•  (Opinion  filed  July  14,  1903.) 

Pure  Food  Law,  Act  22,  P.  A.,  1901,  Construed— Sale  of  Yellow 
Oleomargarine. 

Act  No.  22  of  the  Public  Acts  of  1901  prohibiting  the  sale  of  oleo- 
margarine except  where  it  is  "free  from  coloration  or  ingredient  ihat 
causes  it  to  look  like  butter,"  does  not  prohibit  the  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine whose  color  is  natural,  genuine,  and  not  an  imitation,  and  the 
ingredients   themselves  naturally   produce  the   color. 

The  term  "ingredient,"  used  in  Act  22,  PubHc  Acts  of  1901,  does 
not  refer  to  the  ingredients  essential  to  produce  the  article  as  de- 
fined by  the  legislature,  but  to  an  ingredient  used  to  'produce  color. 

Certiorari  to  the  Circuit  Court  for  Muskegon  county,  Fred  J,  Rus- 
sell, Judge,  to  review  an  order  denying  the  petition  of  John  R.  Bennett 
for  mandamus  to  compel  John  M.  Carr  to  issue  a  warrant.  Order 
affirmed. 

Charles  A.  Blair,  Attorney  General,  and  Cross,  Lovelace  and  Ross,^ 
for  relator  and  appellant. 

Smith,  Nims,  Hoyt  and  Erwin  for  defendant  and  appellee. 

Grant,  J. :  Relator  is  the  inspector  of  the  State  Food  and  Dairy 
Department.  On  the  24th  day  of  February,  1903,  he  made  complaint 
before  the  defendant,  a  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  county  of  Muske- 
gon, charging  one  Martin  Aamondt  with  having  sold  one  pound  of 
oleomargarine  contrary  to  act  No.  22  of  the  PubHc  Acts  of  1901.  The 
respondent  refused  to  entertain  the  complaint  and  issue  warrant, 
on  the  ground  that  the  complaint  stated  no  offense  under  the  pro- 
visions of  said  act,  and  that  said  act  is  unconstitutional  and  void. 
Relator  thereupon  applied  to  the  circuit  court  for  the  county  of  Mus- 
kegon for  the  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  respondent  to  issue 
said  warrant,  and  proceed  with  the  examination.  The  circuit  court 
sustained  the  action  of  the  respondent,  and  the  case  is  now  before 
us  for  review  upon  certiorari. 

The  statute  in  question  reads  as  follows: 

"Section  1.  No  person,  by  himself  or  his  agents,  or  servants,  shaE 
render  or  manufacture,  sell,  offer  for  sale,  expose  for  sale,  or  have  in 
his  possession  with  intent  to  sell,  any  article,  product  or  compound 
made  wholly  or  in  part  out  of  any  fat,  oil,  or  oleaginous  substance 
or  compound  thereof,  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream 
from  the  same,  which  shall  be  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  produced 
from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same:  Provided,  That 
nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  prohibit  the  manufacture 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  89 

or  sale  of  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form,  and  in  such 
manner  as  will  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from  col- 
oration or  ingredient  that  causes  it  to  look  like  butter."  The  com- 
plaint charges  Mr.  Aamondt  with  unlawfully  selling  one  pound  of  oleo- 
margarine '  'made  wholly  or  in  part  of  fat,  oil  or  oleaginous  substance 
or  compound  thereof,  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Water : .  11 .  75  per  cent. 

Butter  fat 1 .34  per  cent. 

Beef  fat,  lard  and  cottonseed  oil ... .  79 .  24  per  cent . 

Salt  and  other  mineral  matter. ...  4.54  per  cent. 

Curd 3 .  13  per  cent. 

Said  article,  product  or  compound  not  being  then  and  there  butter 
produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  and  be- 
ing then  and  there  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  produced  from  un- 
adulterated milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  and  not  being  then  and 
there  oleomargarine  in  a  separate  and  distinct  form  and  in  such  man- 
ner as  would  advise  the  consumer  of  its  real  character,  free  from  col- 
oration or  ingredient  that  would  cause  it  to  look  like  butter,  but  that 
the  said  oleomargarine  was  then  and  there  of  a  yellow  color  in  imi- 
tation of  butter,  said  color  not  being  then  and  there  produced  by  the 
addition  of  any  artificial  coloring  matter,  but  said  color  being  pro- 
duced solely  by  the  said  ingredients  therein  contained,  the  said  in- 
gredients hereinbefore  set  forth  having  been  selected  and  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  said  oleomargarine  in  such  manner  and  in  such  quan- 
tities and  proportion  as  to  produce  the  oleomargarine  that  was  then 
and  there  in  imitation  of  yellow  butter  produced  from  unadulterated 
milk  or  cream  from  the  same,  contrary  to  the  form  of  the  statute," 
etc. 

The  oleomargarine  so  purchased  was  manufactured  in  the  city  of 
Chicago,  State  of  Illinois,  by  one  Moxley,  a  resident  of  said  city,  and 
was  sold  by  said  Moxley  to  said  Aamondt  in  the  usual  course  of  trade, 
and  by  said  Aamondt  was  sold  in  the  usual  course  of  retail  trade,  in 
the  same  form  and  condition,  and  in  the  original  package,  in  which 
it  was  received  by  Aaipondt  from  Moxley. 

It  is  conceded  that  this  oleomargarine  has  a  yellow  color  similar 
to  butter,  but  the  color  is  not  produced  by  any  artificial  coloring  sub- 
stance or  ingredient  used  for  the  purposes  of  coloration,  but  is  pro- 
duced solely  by  the  selection  and  use,  in  proper  proportions,  of  the 
substantial,  recognized,  legal  and  necessary  ingredients  of  commer- 
cial oleomargarine. 

Does  the  complaint  state  an  offense  covered  by  the  statute?  The 
12 


90  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


answer  depends  upon  the  construction  to  be  given  to  the  statute. 
The  relator  contends  that  the  statute  covers  all  products  which  look 
like  yellow  butter,  andrthat  it  is  immaterial  whether  such  color  is 
produced  by  some  ingredient  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  causing 
the  product  to  look  like  butter,  or  whether  such  color  is  produced 
by  authorized  and  legal  constituent  food  ingredients.  The  respond- 
ent contends  that  the  statute  is  aimed  only  at  the  use  of  ingredients 
used  solely  for  the  purpose  of  producing  the  yellow  color,  and  does 
not  prevent  the  manufacture  of  an  article  whose  color  is  natural,  gen- 
uine and  not  an  imitation.  Penal  statutes  must  be  construed  strictly 
and  cannot  be  extended  by  construction  beyond  the  intent  of  the  act 
as  expressed  on  its  face.  The  conditions  existing  at  the  time  the 
statute  was  enacted,  and  the  mischief  to  be  remedied,  are  important 
factors  in  construing  penal  statutes.  Two  acts  covering  the  same 
subject  must  be  construed  as  in  pari  materia,  and,  if  possible,  effect 
given  to  both.  These  are  elementary  rules  of  construction.  At  the 
time  the  statute  in  question  was  enacted  the  only  method  in  use  in 
causing  oleomargarine  to  look  like  yellow  butter  was  the  introduction 
of  some  extraneous  coloring  matter.  This  was  the  mischief  to  be 
remedied.  We  clearly  so  understood  in  People  v.  Rotter,  9  D.  L.  N. 
284;  91  N.  W.  Rep.  167,  where,  speaking  through  Chief  Justice  Hooker, 
we  said  of  this  statute:  ''The  statute  under  consideration  *  *  * 
does  not  prohibit  sales  of  oleomargarine  which  is  not  tainted  with 
the  prohibited  ingredient." 

See  also  People  v.  Phillips,  9  Id.  393;  91  N.  W.  Rep.  616. 

The  legislature  has  defined  oleomargarine  which  may  be  manu- 
factured and>old  in  this  State.  Sec.  6,  Act  No.  147,  PubUc  Acts  of 
1899.  It  is  conceded  that  the  respondent  has  complied  with  this 
act.  If  we  give  the  enlarged  construction  to  the  statute  now  in  ques- 
tion, as  urged  by  the  relator,  it  follows  that  the  legislature  has  pro- 
hibited the  manufacture  and  sale  of  a  valuable  article  of  food,  the 
natural  color  of  which  resembles  yellow  butter  (itself  almost  univer- 
sally colored  by  extraneous  matter).  The  manufacturer  of  such  a 
product,  if  he  sold  it  at  all,  would  be  compelled  to  introduce  some 
coloring  matter  so  as  to  make  it  look  unlike  the  yellow  butter  of  com- 
merce. These  two  statutes  must  be  construed  together.  The  article 
sold  by  the  respondent  is  clearly  authorized  by  the  first  act.  The 
latter  act  does  not  in  terms  prohibit  its  sale  and  manufacture.  It 
does  prohibit  the  use  of  any  substance  for  the  sole  purpose  of  pro- 
ducing yellow  color.     The  use  of  such  coloring  matter  was  the  sole 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  91 

mischief  then  known  to  exist,  and  the  only  danger  to  be  apprehended 
and  guarded  against. 

A  similar  statute  was  passed  in  New  Jersey,  and  the  like  conten- 
tion was  made  to  support  a  conviction,  and  the  court  said:  "To 
-construe  the  statute  so  broadly  would  render  it  practically  prohibi- 
tive of  the  sale  of  all  oleomargarine;  for,  of  course,  the  compound  must 
derive  color  from  its  ingredients,  and  such  a  prohibition  has  mani- 
festly not  been  declared." 

Ammon  v.  Newton,  14  At.  Rep.  610;  50  N.  J.  548. 
McCan  v.  Commonwealth,  48  At.  Rep.  470;  198  P.  A. 
St.  509. 

Our  statute  is  copied  verbatim  from  that  of  Massachusetts.  The 
Supreme  Court  of  that  State,  in  a  case  just  decided,  has  held  that 
the  statute  applies  only  to  extraneous  substances  or  ingredients  which 
cause  the  product  to  look  like  butter,  and  not  to  cases  where  the  in- 
gredients themselves  naturally  produce  the  color. 

Commonwealth    v.    Himberg,    . 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  so  held  in  regard  to  the 
same  statute. 

Plumley  v.  Commonwealth,  155  U.  S.  461. 

The  term  "ingredient,"  used  in  the  statute,  does  ijot  refer  to  the 
ingredients  essential  to  produce  the  article  as  defined  by  the  legisla- 
ture, but  to  an  ingredient  used  to  produce  color.  The  maxim  noscitur 
a  sociis  applies. 

Under  this  disposition  of  the  case  it  becomes  unnecessary  to  discuss 
any    constitutional    question. 

The  order  is  affirmed. 

The  other  justices  concurred. 


92  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


PEOPLE  V.  HARRIS. 

(Opinion  filed  December  1,  1903.). 

Food — Corn  Syrups — Glucose. 

1.  Public  Acts  1903,  No.  123  forbids  the  sale  of  cane  syrup  or  beet 
syrup  niixed  with  glucose,  unless  the  package  containing  the  same 
be  distinctly  branded  "Glucose  Mixture"  or  ''Com  Syrup,'* 
with  the  name  and  percentage  of  each  ingredient  contained  there- 
on plainly  stamped  thereon.  Held,  That  a  sale  of  syrup  made 
of  90  per  cent  pure  corn  syrup  and  10  per  cent  cane  syrup,  labeled 
'  'Victor  Corn  Syrup,"  and  truthfully  stating  the  ingredients  com- 
posing it,  is  not  in  violation  of  the  statute,  in  that  it  is  not  brand- 
ed ''Glucose,  90  per  cent,  and  cane  syrup  10  per  cent." 

Exceptions  from  circuit  court,  Kent  county;  WiUis  B.  Perkins, 
Judge. 

Benjamin  S.  Harris  was  convicted  of  violating  the  "Act  in  rela- 
tion to  the  sale  of  corn  syrup"  and  brings  exceptions.     Reversed. 

Respondent  was  prosecuted  and  convicted  for  a  violation  of  Act 
No.  123  of  the  Pubhc  Acts  of  1903,  entiled  "An  act  in  relation  to 
the  sale  of  corn  syrup,"  and  reading  as  follows: 

"Sec.  1.  No  person  shall  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  have  in  his  pos- 
session with  intent  to  sell,  any  cane  syrup,  beet  syrup,  or  glucose,  un- 
less the  barrel,  cask,  keg,  can,  pail  or  package  containing  the  same 
be  distinctly  branded  or  labeled  with  the  true  and  appropriate  name; 
nor  shall  any  person  offer  or  expose  for  sale,  have  in  his  possession 
with  intent  to  sell,  or  sell  any  cane  syrup  or  beet  syrup  mixed  with 
glucose  unless  the  barrel,  cask,  keg,  can,  pail  or  package  containing 
the  same  be  distinctly  branded  or  labeled  'Glucose  Mixture'  or  'Corn 
Syrup'  in  plain  Gothic  type  not  less  than  three-eights  of  an  inch  square,, 
with  the  name  and  percentage  by  weight  of  each  ingredient  contained 
therein  plainly  stamped,  branded  or  stenciled  on^  each  package  in 
plain  Gothic  letters  not  less  than  one-quarter  of  an  inch  square.  Each 
and  every  package  of  syrup  either  simple  or  mixed  shall  bear  the  name 
and  address  of  the  manufacturer.  Such  mixtures  or  syrups  shall 
have  no  other  designation  or  brand  than  herein  required  that  repre- 
sents or  is  the  name  of  any  article  which  contains  a  saccharine  sub- 
stance; and  all  brands  or  labels  required  shall  be  an  inseparable  part 
of  the  general  or  distinguishing  label,  and  that  the  general  or  dis- 
tinguishing label  shall  be  that  principal  and  conspicuous  sign  under 
which  it  is  sold. 

Sec.  2.  Whoever  shall  do  any  of  the  acts  or  things  prohibited,  or 
neglect  or  refuse  to  do  any  -of  the  acts  or  things  required  by  this  act 
or  in  any  way  violate  any  of  the  provisions,  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  less  than  twenty- 
five  dollars  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS. 


in  the  county  jail  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  thirty  nor  rhore  than 
ninety  days,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court." 

The  complaint  charges  him  with  the  unlawful  sale  of  '  'a  two-pound 
can,  two  pounds,  of  a  certain  article,  product  and  compound,  to- wit: 
corn  syrup,  so-called,  made  wholly  or  in  part  of  cane  syrup  and  glu- 
cose as  follows,  to-wit:  Cane  syrup  ten  per  cent,  and  glucose  ninety 
per  cent,  said  can  containing  said  article,  product  and  compound  sold 
as  aforesaid  not  being  then  and  there  stamped,  branded  or  stenciled 
with  the  name  and  percentage  by  weight  of  each  ingredient  contained 
therein,  to-wit:  cane  syrup  ten  per  cent,  glucose  ninety  per  cent; 
but  said  article,  product  and  compound  sold  as  aforesaid  was  then 
and  there  stamped  and  branded  as  follows,  to-wit:  'Cane  syrup  ten 
per  cent,  corn  syrup  ninety  per  cent,'  against  the  form  of  the  statute 
in  such  case  made  and  provided,  and  against  the  peace  and  dignity 
of  the  people  of  the  State  of  Michigan." 

Respondent  moved  to  quash  the  complaint  and  warrant  for  two 
reasons:  (1)  they  charged  no  offense;  (2)  the  act  authorizes  the  use 
of  the  words  ''Corn  Syrup,"  instead  of  Glucose  in  the  statement  of 
the  ingredients  placed  upon  the  can.  The  motion  was  overruled  and 
the  case  proceeded  to  trial  upon  the  following  agreed  facts: 

1.  The  respondent  sold  on  October  12,  1903,  at  the  city  of  Grand 
Rapids,  Michigan,  the  can  of  Victor  Corn  Syrup  in  question. 

2.  The  label  on  said  can  of  syrup  sold,  as  stated  in  the  complaint, 
contains  the  formula  of  contents  of  said  can  as  follows :  '  'Corn  Syrup, 
ninety  per  cent;  cane  syrup,  ten  per  cent;"  and  is  not  branded  or  labeled 
as  the  people  claim  it  should  be, '  'Glucose,  ninety  per  cent;  Cane  Syrup, 
ten  per  cent." 

3.  The  Victor  Corn  Syrup  in  question  is  in  fact  composed  of  ninety 
per  cent  syrup  made  from  corn,  commercially  called  Glucose  or  Corn 
Syrup,  and  ten  per  cent  of  cane  syrup. 

4.  Glucose  contained  in  the  Victor  Corn  Syrup  in  question  is  in 
fact  a  pure  syrup  made  entirely  from  corn. 

5.  Grape  Sugar,  commercially  known  as  Glucose,  either  solid  or 
liquid,  is  a  generic  name  for  starch  sugar  as  distinguished  from  the 
cane  sugar. 

6.  A  simple  beet  syrup  is  evidently  the  same  as  the  simple  cane 
syrup. 

7.  Originallly,  Glucose,  which  was  first  made  from  grapes,  was, 
for  the  reason  that  starch  sugars  are  identical  with  the  sweet  principle 
of  grapes,  termed,  for  a  great  many  years,  and  until  lately  was  known 
chemically   and   commercially   as   Grape   Sugar. 

8.  Commercially,  Glucose  is  now  made  in  this  country  entirely 
from  corn,  although  abroad  it  is  still  made  from  potatoes. 

9.  The  consuming  public  does  not  understand  that  Glucose  is  a 
syrup  made  entirely  from  corn.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  claimed  by 
the  respondent  that  the  public  generally  supposes  Glucose  to  be  an 
inferior  product  made  from  animal  fat,  or  a  product  of  the  glue  factory, 
while  they  do  recognize  corn  syrup  as  being  made  from  corn. 

10.  Glucose  as  made  from  corn  and  contained  in  Victor  Corn  Syrup 


94  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


in  question,  is  entirely  harmless  and  recognized  generally  by  highest- 
authorities  as  a  valuable  food  product. 

11.  Glucose  made  from  corn,  in  fact,  costs,  at  the  present  time^ 
owing  partially  to  cost  of  raw  material,  more  to  produce,  and  sells- 
for  more  in  the  markets,  than  manufactured  cane  syrup. 

The  court  directed  a  verdict  of  guilty. 

Grant,  J. 

Does  the  statute  require  respondent  or  manufacturers  to 
state  upon  their  labels  that  corn  syrup  consists  of  ninety  per  cent  glu- 
cose? No  such  statute  has  come  under  the  decision  of  other  courts. 
It  is  a  new  question,  and  must  be  determined  upon  general  principles 
of  construction. 

It  is  conceded  that  the  label  states  the  exact  facts;  that  the  article- 
is  made  of  ninety  per  cent  pure  corn  syrup  and  ten  per  cent  cane  syrup; 
that  it  deceives  no  one;  that  Victor  Corn  Syrup  is  a  valuable  and  pure 
article  of  food,  and  that  the  ingredient  ninety  per  cent  corn  syrup  "is- 
entirely  harmless,  and  recognized  generally  by  the  highest  authority 
as  a  valuable  food  product,"  whether  it  be  called  glucose  or  corn  syrup. 
The  term  '  'Glucose' '  is  obnoxious  to  many,  if  not  a  majority,  of  the 
public,  and  is  misunderstood  by  them.  They  do  not  know  that  in 
this  country  glucose  is  now  made  entirely  from  corn,  and  that  the 
terms  glucose  and  com  syrup  are  commercially  synonymous.  This 
fact  is  known  to  the  manufacturers  and  perhaps  the  dealers.  A  pre- 
judice exists  against  the  term  "glucose"  because  that  material  can 
be  manufactured  from  many  substances,  including  sawdust.  In 
Europe  it  is  made  mainly  of  potatoes.  By  many  it  is  associated  with 
a  glue  factory.  In  this  country  corn  syrup  and  glucose  are  not  only 
commercially  synonymous  terms,  but  it  is  stated  by  counsel  for  res- 
pondent that  they  are  permitted  to  be  so  used  in  all  the  other  states. 
We  have  not  verified  this  statement,  but  as  it  is  not  challenged  we 
assume  it  to  be  correct. 

We  have,  therefore,  a  valuable  and  healthful  product,  made  from 
two  pure,  valuable  and  healthful  ingredients,  advertised  and  placed 
upon  the  markets  for  what  it  really  is,  without  any  deception,  fraud  or 
chance  to  injure  the  public  in  any  way.  Yet  the  contention  on  be- 
half of  the  people  is  that  the  legislature  has  enacted  that  in  putting 
this  product  upon  the  market  its  manufacturers  and  sellers  must  at- 
tach to  it  a  name  obnoxious  to  the  public,  and,  in  fact,  calculated  to 
deceive  them.  When  it  is  claimed  that  such  innocent  acts  are  made 
malum  'prohibitum,  there  must  be  either  an  express  provision  of  the 
statute  so  declaring,  or  the  language  of  the  statute  must  leave  no 
other  conclusion  reasonable.  This  statute  does  not  expressly  require 
it. 

The  argument  on  behalf  of  the  people  is  "that  glucose  made  from 
com  is  glucose,  the  simple  syrup  mentioned  in  and  intended  to  be 
mentioned  in  said  act."  The  further  claim  is  "that  had  there  been 
any  intention  on  the  part  of  the  legislature  to  use  the  terms  'glucose' 
and  'corn  syrup'  interchangeably  and  as  synonymous  then  the  term 
*  com  syrup'  would  have  been  enumerated  as  one  of  the  simple  syrups." 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  95 

We  do  not  think  this  reasoning  at  all  conclusive.  Prior  to  the  enact- 
ment of  this  statute  the  law  prohibited  the  sale  of  molasses,  syrup  or 
glucose  unless  distinctly  branded  or  labeled  with  its  true  and  appro- 
priate name, — or  any  mixture  thereof,  unless  it  was  branded  or  labeled 
*^glucose  mixture,"  and  the  per  cent  in  which  glucose  entered  into 
its  composition.  C.  L.,  sec.  5024,  The  present  act  which  repeals 
the  provisions  of  the  former  act  expressly  permits  the  mixture  to 
be  labeled  "glucose  mixture,"  or  ''corn  syrup."  and  forbids  mixtures 
or  syrups  to  have  any  other  designation  than  required  in  the  act  so 
far  as  such  designation  '  'represents  or  is  the  name  of  any  article  which 
contains  saccharine  substance."  It  is  a  fair  presumption  that  the 
legislature,  in  enacting  this  law,  recognized  the  obnoxious  character 
of  the  term  "glucose"  among  the  people,  and  permitted,  and  intended 
to  permit,  a  mixture  of  corn  syrup  and  cane  syrup  to  be  sold  under 
the  name  of  Corn  Syrup.  The  title  to  the  act  provides  for  the  sale 
of  com  syrup,  and  in  its  body  provides  that  when  cane  syrup  is  mixed 
with  it,  the  manufacturers  and  dealers  shall  state  the  proportionate 
ingredients.  The  smaller  amount  of  cane  syrup  used  does  not  change 
the  character  of  the  general  product,  any  more  than  salt  changes  the 
character  of  bread,  or,  sugar  that  of  cake,  and  the  act  permits  the  sale 
of  the  mixture  as  corn  syrup.  Syrup,  as  defined  by  the  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture,  "is  the  product  obtained  by  purifying 
and  evaporating  the  juice  of  a  sugar  producing  plant  without  removing 
any  of  the  sugar."  Syrup  thus  obtained  from  cane  is  cane  syrup; 
syrup  so  obtained  from  sorghum  is  sorghum  syrup,  and  syrup  so  ob- 
tained from  com  is  corn  syrup.  There  is  no  reason  why  com  syrup 
should  be  labeled  ghicose,  and  until  the  legislature  have  so  ordered 
in  language  susceptible  of  no  other  construction,  the  law  must  be  held 
not  to  bear  that  construction. 

Conviction    reversed,    and    respondent    discharged. 

Hooker,  C.  J.,  took  no  part  in  the  decision.     The  o'ther  justices 
concurred. 


90  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


PEOPLE  V.  HINSHAW. 

(Opinion  filed  January  5,  1904.) 

Pure  Food  Law — Adulterated  with  Harmless  Ingredients — Act  193, 
P.  A.  1895,  Construed. 

The  coloration  of  "Extract  of  Vanilla"  with  any  substance  to  give 
it  the  appearance  of  greater  strength  is  a  violation  of  the  pure  food 
law,  even  though  such  coloring  matter  is  harmless. 

Act  193,  P.  A.  1895,  as  amended  by  Act  118,  P.  A.  1897,  held  con- 
stitutional. 

Error  to  the  Circuit  Court  for  Saginaw  County,  B.  A.  Snow,  Judge. 

Appeal  of  Emory  H.  Hinshaw  from  a  conviction  under  the  pure  food 
law.     Affirmed. 

Charles  A.  Blair,  attorney  general,  and  Frank  A.  Rockwith,  Jr., 
and  C.  M.  Browne,  for  the  people. 

Eugene  Wilber  for  respondent  and  appellant. 

Respondent  was  prosecuted  and  convicted  of  the  unlawful  sale 
of  '^Extract  of  Vanilla,  which  was  then  and  there  adulterated  with- 
in the  meaning  of  act  number  193  of  the  Public  Acts  of  the  State  of 
Michigan  of  the  year  1895,  as  amended  by  act  number  118  of  the  Pub- 
lic Acts  of  1897,  in  this,  to  wit:  That  said  Extract  of  Vanilla  was 
colored  by  the  addition  of  a  foreign  coloring  matter,  to  wit:  coal  tar 
dye,  whereby  its  inferiority  was  concealed,  and  whereby  said  Ex- 
tract of  Vanilla  was  made  to  appear  better  and  of  greater  value  than 
it  really  was." 

Two  errors  are  assigned. — (1)  that  the  court  erred  in  instructing 
the  jury;  (2)  that  the  act  is  unconstitutional  as  repugnant  to  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Grant,  J.:  1.  The  instruction  complained  of  is  as  follows: 
*'Now  before  the  inferiority  of  an  article  can  be  concealed  it  must 
be  necessarily  first  ascertained  as  to  whether  or  not  there  is  an  infer- 
iority in  the  article.  If  it  is  an  inferior  article  and  that  inferiority  is 
concealed  by  reason  of  the  addition  of  foreign  substance  in  this  vanilla, 
and  you  are  satisfied  from  the  proof  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  of 
the  fact,  then  he  would  be  guilty,  although  he  had  no  knowledge  as 
to  the  foreign  substance  being  in  the  bottle." 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  97 

It  appears  that  no  such  claim  was  made  on  behalf  of  respondent  upon 
the  trial;  no  request  was  asked  covering  the  points  now  raised.  The 
only  objections  shown  by  the  record  to  have  been  made  are, — first, 
that  the  title  is  not  broad  enough  to  cover  the  provisions  in  the  amend- 
ment of  1897;  second,  that  the  legislature  has  no  power  to  prohibit  and 
punish  acts  in  themselves  harmless;  third,  that  tne  act  is 
unconstitutional. 

Even  in  criminal  cases  it  is  the  duty  of  counsel  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  court  to  the  points  on  which  an  instruction  is  desired.  Peo- 
ple vs.  Ezzo,  104  Mich.  311. 

We,  however,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  information  charges  the 
coloration  to  make  an  inferior  article  appear  better  and  more  valu- 
able than  it  really  was,  and  is  sufficient;  and  also  that  there  was  evi- 
dence to  sustain  the  allegation.  The  State  Chemist  testified  that  the 
effect  of  the  coal  tar  dye  was  to  make  the  article  appear  of  greater 
value  than  it  really  is,  and  that  the  people  would  think  it  stronger 
than  it  really  was.  It  is  true,  his  testimony  was  weakened  by  cross- 
examination,  but  not  sufficient  to  take  the  question  from  the  jury, — 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  no  other  purpose  than  to  make  the 
article  appear  better,  is  shown. 

II.  The  use  of  coal  tar  dye  being  harmless,  counsel  for  respondent 
insists  that  the  case  comes  within  the  rule  of  the  recent  case  of  People 
vs.  Jennings,  94  N.  W.  R.  216;  10  D.  L.  N.  39.  That  case  had  not 
been  decided  when  this  case  was  tried.  No  such  theory  was  advanced 
upon  the  trial.  Even  if  it  were,  we,  however,  think  the  case  is  clear- 
ly distinguishable  from  People  vs.  Jennings.  The  color  given  to 
lemon  extract,  which  of  itself  is  almost  colorless,  is  no  indication  what- 
ever of  the  strength  of  the  extract  or  its  value.  Its  color  is  a  mere 
whim  or  caprice  of  the  trade,  and  no  more  indicates  the  character 
and  value  of  the  extract  than  does  the  coloring  matter, -used  to  color 
butter,  indicate  its  character  and  value.  In  this  case  Vanilla  resem- 
bles the  color  of  the  bean  from  which  it  is  produced.  Its  strength 
and  value  are  judged  to  some  extent  at  least,  under  the  evidence  in 
this  case,  from  its  color.  No  other  object  is  apparent  from  the  use 
of  the  coloring  than  to  make  it  appear  of  a  quality  better  than  it  really 
is. 

III.  It  is  urged  that  the  kct  is  unconstitutional  on  account  of  the 

Eroviso  "that  nothing  in  this  act  shall  prevent  the  coloring  of  pure 
utter."  This  act  is  similar  in  its  provisions  to  that  involved  in  Peo- 
ple vs.  Rotter.  91  N.  W.  R.  167;  and  People  vs.  PhiUips,  Id.  616.  The 
constitutionality  of  such  acts  was  there  sustained,  and  a  discussion 
is  unnecessary.  Capital  City  Dairy  Co.  vs.  Ohio,  183  U.  S.  238,  246, 
is  decisive  of  the  question. 
The  conviction  is  affirmed. 
The  other  justices  concurred.  .J 

13 


ABSTRACT  OF  LAWS. 


The  following  is  but  a  brief  synopsis  of  the  Dairy  and 
Food  Laws.  The  Digest  and  Rulings  cover  but  a  portion 
of  the  food  and  drink  products  affected  by  the  statutes. 
Every  article  of  food  and  drink  comes  within  the  law's 
regulation,  and  dealers  are  advised  to  examine  the  laws 
carefully  and  inform  themselves  fully. 

IN    GENERAL. 

No  person  shall  within  this  State  manufacture  for  sale, 
have  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell,  offer  or  expose 
for  sale,  or  sell,  any  article  of  food  or  drink  which  is 
adulterated. 

The  taking  of  orders,  or  the  making  of  agreements  or  con- 
tracts, by  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation,  or  by  any  agent 
or  representative  thereof,  for  the  future  delivery  of  any 
of  the  articles,  products,  goods,  wares  or  merchandise  em- 
braced within  the  provisions  of  this  act  is  deemed  a  sale. 

Under  this  statute  a  dealer  is  liable  for  selling  an  adul- 
terated article,  although  he  may  have  no  knowledge  that 
the  same  is  adulterated. 

A  guarantee  of  purity  received  from  the  manufacturer 
or  jobber  does  not  relieve  a  person  handling  adulterated 
goods  from  liability. 

AN    ARTICLE 

shall  be  deemed  to  be  adulterated: 

1.     If   any   substance   or   substances   have   been   mixed 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  99 

with  it,  SO  as  to  lower  or  depreciate  or  injuriously  affect 
its  quality,  strength  or  purity. ; 

2.  If  any  inferior  or  cheaper  substance  or  substances 
have  been  substituted  wholly  or  in  part  for  it ; 

3.  If  any  valuable  or  necessary  constituent  or  ingre- 
dient has  been  wholly  or  in  part  abstracted  from  it; 

4.  If  it  is  an  imitation  of  or  is  sold  under  the  name  of 
another    article ; 

5.  If  it  consists  wholly  or  in  part  of  a  diseased,  decom- 
posed, putrid,  infected,  tainted  or  rotten  animal  or  vegetable 
substance  or  article,  whether  manufactured  or  not,  or, 
in  the  case  of  milk,  if  it  is  the  product  of  a  diseased 
animal  ; 

6.  If  it  is  colored,  coated,  polished  or  powdered,  where- 
by damage  or  inferiority  is  concealed,  or  if  by  any  means 
it  is  made  to  aj^pear  better  or  of  greater  value  than  it  really 
is,  except  in  the  case  of  pure  butter,  which  may  be  colored. 

7.  If  it  contains  any  added  substance  or  ingredient 
which  is  poisonous  or  injurious  to  health. 

MIXTURES  OR  COMPOUNDS. 

recognized   as   ordinary   articles   or   ingredients   of   articles 
of  food  may  be  sold  under  the  following  restrictions: 

1.  All  packages  containing  same  must  bear  the  name 
and  address  of  the  manufacturer  or  compounder  thereof; 

2.  They   must   contain   nothing   injurious   to   health; 

3.  They  must  not  be  sold  in  imitation  of,  or  under  the 
name   of   another   article; 

4.  They  must  be  distinctly  labeled  under  their  own 
distinctive  name,  and  in  a  manner  so  as  to  plainly  and 
correctly  show  they  are  a  mixture  or  compound; 

5.  A  mixture  or  compound  cannot  be  sold  under  the 
name  of  any  ingredient  contained  therein,  even  though 
the  words  mixture  or  compound  be  used  in  connection 
therewith.     It  must  be  sold  under  an  original  or  coined  name. 

Exceptions  under  the  law  are: 

Buckwheat  flour,  coffee  and  lard,  which  may  be  mixed 
with  other  substances  under  certain  restrictions  and  sold 
as  buckwheat  flour  compound,  coffee  compound  and  lard 
compound. 


100  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 


DIGEST    AND    RULINGS. 


Baking  Powder. — All  packages  containing  same  must 
bear  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer.  Can  be  sold 
without  formula,  but  if  labeled  cream  of  tartar,  phos- 
phate powder,  etc.,  must  be  true  to  name. 

Buckwheat  Flour. — If  labeled  ' 'Buckwheat  Flour"  must 
be  true  to  name.  Can  be  mixed  with  substances  not  in- 
jurious to  health  if  labeled  '  'Buckwheat  Flour  Compound'' 
in  letters  not  less  than  one-half  inch  in  length  followed 
with  the  name  of  the  maker  and  factory  and  the  location 
of  such  factory.  Any  other  label  or  printed  matter  upon 
the  package  shall  not  be  in  contravention  of  the  above 
requirements. 

Butter. — Must  be  made  exclusively  of  milk  or  cream. 
May  be  colored  with  coloring  matter  not  injurious  to  health. 
Butter  factories  where  milk  or  cream  is  purchased  of,  or 
contributed  by,  three  or  more  persons  must  register  with 
the  Department  on  or  before  April  1  of  each  year.  Reno- 
vated butter  must  be  labeled  as  such.  See  ruling  under 
head  of  Renovated  Butter. 

Candy. — Must  not  contain  terra  alba,  barytes,  talc,  or 
other  earthy  or  mineral  substances,  or  any  poisonous  col- 
ors or  flavors,  or  ingredients  detrimental  to  health. 

Catsup. — All  packages  containing  same  must  bear  the 
name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer.  Must  contain 
jio  ingredients  injurious  to  health. 

Cheese. — Must  be  made  exclusively  of  milk  qt  cream. 
Only  cheese  made  from  milk  frorn  which  no  cream  has 
been  taken  can  be  sold  as,  or  branded,  '  'Full  Cream  Cheese,'' 
or  "Full  Milk  Cheese."  Cheese  factories  where  milk  or 
cream  is  purchased  of,  or  contributed  by,  three  or  more 
persons  must  register  with  the  Department,  on  or  before 
April  1  of  each  year.  Authorized  brands  bearing  the  words, 
"Michigan   Full   Cream   Cheese,"    may   be   obtained  from 


DAIRY  AJJD  FiOOto  tA;^9^!  \  I  ';   '>  ,  ';  i       ,  101 

the  Department  upon  payment  of  a  fee  of  one  dollar  an- 
nually. 

Coffee. — If  sold  as  such  must  be  true  to  name.  May 
be  mixed  with  chicory,  or  other  substances  not  injurious 
to  health,  if  marked  or  labeled  ' 'Coffee  Compound,"  to- 
gether with  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer 
or  compounder,  and  have  no  other  label  of  whatever  name 
or  designation.  This  applies  to  ail  packages  containing 
such  coffee  whether  put  up  for  immediate  delivery  or  for 
stock  purposes. 

Coffee  Substitute. — Mixtures  of  cereals  or  other  ar- 
ticles sold  as  substitute  for  coffee,  must  be  sold  as  a  mix- 
ture or  compound  under  an  original  or  coined  name  and 
not  under  the  name  of  any  ingredient  contained  therein 
All  packages  containing  same  must  bear  the  name  and 
address  of  the  manufacturer  or  compounder  thereof. 

Canned  Goods. — Must  bear  name  and  address  of 
packer.  If  dried  before  canning  must  be  labeled,  ' 'Soaked 
or  Bleached  Goods,"  in  letters  not  less  than  two  line  pica 
in  size. 

Cream  of  Tartar. — Must  be  pure  and  true  to  name. 
Cannot  be  mixed  or  compounded  with  any  other  article 
and  sold  under  the  name  of  any  ingredient  thereof,  even 
though  it  be  labeled  mixture  or  compound. 

Extracts,  Flavoring. — Bottles  or  packages  containing 
extracts  must  bear'  the  name  and  address  of  the  manu- 
facturer. Vanilla  flavoring  must  be  without  artificial 
color.  This  includes  all  extracts  of  vanilla  or  tonka  whether 
mixed  or  simple. 

Extracts  of  vanilla  and  tonka  may  be  mixed  and  sold 
as  ''Extract  of  Vanilla  and  Tonka,"  or  simply  "Extract 
of  Tonka."  The  labeling  of  an  extract  of  vanilla  and 
tonka  as  "Extract  of  Vanilla"  or  "Compound  Extract 
of  Vanilla,' '  with  the  per  cent  of  each  ingredient  contained 
therein,  is  not  proper,  and  will  be  considered  an  adulter- 


102 


ation.  It  must  be  understood  that  when  an  extract  of 
vanilla  and  tonka  is  labeled  with  both  names,  the  type 
used  is  to  be  similar  in  style  and  size,  and  that  one  name 
is  not  to  be  given  greater  prominence  than  another.  So 
called  extracts  that  are  not  made  from  the  fruit,  berry 
or  bean,  and  are  made  artificially,  such  as  raspberry,  straw- 
berry, pineapple^  banana,  etc.,  are  prohibited  by  law. 

Farinaceous  Goods. — Must  be  true  to  name.  Barley, 
Hominy,  Cracked  or  Rolled  Wheat  or  Oats,  Tapioca,  and 
like  articles,  must  be  pure  and  unadulterated.  If  mixed 
or  compounded  with  other  articles,  must  be  sold  as  a  mix- 
ture or  compound,  under  an  original  or  coined  name,  and 
not  under  the  name  of  any  ingredient  contained  therein. 
All  packages  containing  mixtures  or  compounds  of  this 
kind  must  bear  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer 
or  compounder  thereof. 

Honey.— Must  be  pure.  Cannot  be  mixed  with  glucose 
or  other  substances   and  sold  as   ^^Honey  Compound." 

Jellies,  Jams,  Fruit  Butters,  etc. — Imitation  fruit  jel- 
lies, jams,  preserves,  fruit  butters  or  other  similar  com- 
pounds made  or  composed  in  whole  or  in  part  of  glucose, 
dextrine,  starch  or  other  substances,  can  be  sold  if  un- 
colored,  are  not  injurious,  and  are  distinctly  and  durably 
labeled  'Imitation  Fruit  Jelly,  Jam,  Preserves  or  Fruit 
Butter,"  with  the  name  and  location  of  manufacturer, 
and  have  no  other  label  of  whatever  name. 

Lard. — Imitation  lard  in  manufactures'  packages  must 
be  distinctly  branded  or  labeled  either  '  'Lard  Compound, " 
''Adulterated  Lard,"  or  "Lard  Substitute,"  in  letters 
not  less  than  one  inch  in  length,  and  shall  be  followed  with 
the  name  of  the  maker  and  factory,  and  the  location  of 
such  factory.  If  kept  or  sold  in  other  than  manufactur- 
ers' packages  the  name  of  the  maker  or  factory  is  not  nec- 
essary, but  each  and  every  package  must  be  distinctly 
labeled  '  'Lard  Compound,' '  '  'Adulterated  Lard, "  or  '  'Lard 
Substitute,"  printed  in  letters  not  less  than  one-half  inch 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  103 

in  length.     This   also   applies   to   smaller   quantities   when 
put  up  for  immediate  delivery. 

Liquors. — Spirituous,  fermented,  or  malt  liquors  must 
not  contain  drugs  or  poisons  or  ingredients  deleterious  or 
unhealthy.  Persons  engaged  in  manufacturing,  rectifying 
or  preparing  same  in  any  way  must  brand  on  each  barrel, 
cask,  or  vessel  containing  the  same,  the  name  of  the  person, 
firm  or  corporation  manufacturing,  rectifying  or  preparing 
the  same,  and  also  the  words,  '  Ture  and  without  drugs 
or  poison. "  No  person  shall  sell  at  wholesale  or  retail 
any  such  liquors  from  any  barrel,  cask  or  vessel,  unless 
the  same  shall  have  been  branded  and  marked  as  aforesaid. 

Maple  Sugar  and  Maple  Syrup. — Must  be  pure  and  true 
to  name.  Cannot  be  mixed  with  •  other  sugar  or  syrup 
and  sold  as  ''Maple  Sugar  Compound"  or  ''Ma]]ie  Syrup 
Compound. " 

Milk. — Must  contain  not  less  than  three  per  cent  fat 
and  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent  solids.  Milk  from  which 
cream  has  been  removed  must  be  labeled  and  sold  as  '  'Skim 
Milk. "  The  sale  of  milk  which  is  impure,  unwholesome 
or  adulterated,  or  from  cows  which  are  diseased,  or  fed 
upon  the  refuse  of  a  distillery  or  brewery,  or  upon  any 
substance  deleterious  to  the  quality  of  the  milk,  such  as 
garbage,  swill,  or  any  substance  in  a  state  of  fermentation 
or  putrefaction,  or  from  cows  kept  in  connection  with  a 
family  in  which  there  is  infectious  disease,  is  prohibited. 
The  addition  of  coloring  matter  or  preservatives  in  milk 
is  prohibited. 

Molasses. — Each  barrel,  cask,  can,  keg  or  pail  contain- 
ing molasses,  syrup  or  glucose  shall  be  distinctly  branded 
or  labeled  with  the  true  and  appropriate  name  of  such 
article.  Packages  containing  molasses  mixed  with  glu- 
cose shall  be  branded  or  labeled  "Glucose  Mixture"  and 
the  per  cent  in  which  glucose  enters  into  its  composition. 
All  brands  or  labels  shall  be  in  letters  of  not  less  than  one- 
half  inch  in  length  and  shall  be  in  a  conspicuous  place. 


104  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

Glucose  and  glucose  mixtures  shall  have  no  other  designa- 
tion than  herein  required.  Glucose  mixtures  must  bear 
the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer.     (See  Syrup.) 

Oleomargarine. — ^AU  compounds  of  animal  or  vegetable 
fats  made  in  imitation  or  semblance  of  butter,  or  calculated 
to  be  used  as  or  for  butter,  must  be  known  and  designated 
as  '  'Oleomargarine. " 

The  use  of  the  name  of  any  breed  of  dairy  cattle,  or  the 
use  of  any  words  or  symbols  commonly  used  in  the  sale 
of  butter,  is  forbidden  in  the  sale,  exposure  for  sale  or  ad- 
vertisement of  any  oleomargarine. 

Proprietors  of  any  place  where  oleomargarine  is  sold 
or  furnished  must  have  conspicuously  placed  on  the  walls 
of  the  room  where  the  same  is  sold  or  furnished,  a  white 
placard  containing  the  words ,  '  'Oleomargarine  Sold  or 
Used  Here"  printed  in  black  ink  in  plain  Roman  letters 
not  less  than  three  inches  in  length  nor  less  than  two  inches 
in  width.  This  applies  to  hotel,  restaurant  and  board- 
ing house  keepers  where  oleomargarine  is  served 

All  packages  containing  oleomargarine  must  be  branded 
as  such  in  ordinary  bold  faced  capital  letters  not  less  than 
five  line  pica  in  size,  together  with  the  name  and  address 
of  the  manufacturer  and  the  name  of  each  and  every  article 
or  ingredient  used  or  entering  into  its  composition  in  ordin- 
ary bold-faced  letters  not  less  than  pica  in  size. 

Dealers  must  notify  purchasers  at  the  time  of  selling 
oleomargarine  by  verbal  notice  'that  the  same  is  a  sub- 
stitute for  butter,  and  must  also  deliver  to  the  purchaser 
a  separate  and  distinct  label  on  which  shall  be  printed 
in  black  ink  in  ordinary  bold-faced  capital  letters,  not  less 
than  five  line  pica  in  size  the  word  ''Oleomargarine,"  to- 
gether with  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer 
and  the  name  of  each  article  used  and  entering  into  its 
composition  in  ordinary  bold-faced  letters  not  less  than 
pica  in  size.  This  label  must  be  dehvered  in  addition  to 
the  label  contained  on  the  package  in  which  said  oleo- 
margarine is  wrapped  for  sale. 

Oleomargarine  must  not  contain  artificial  coloring  matter. 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  105 

Pancake  Flour. — If  containing  more  than  one  article 
must  be  sold  as  a  mixture  or  compound  under  an  original 
or  coined  name',  and  not  under  the  name  of  any  ingredient 
contained  therein.  Packages  containing  same  must 
bear  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer  or  com- 
pounder. 

Pepper. — All  black  pepper  shall  contain  not  more  than 
six  and  one-half  per  cent  ash  or  mineral  matter;  and  shall 
contain  not  less  than  twenty-five  per  cent  starch  as  de- 
termined by  the  diastase  method;  and  shall  contain  not 
less  than  six  tenths  of  one  per  cent  nor  more  than  one  and 
three-fourths  per  cent  of  volatile  ether  extract;  and  shall 
contain  not  more  than  ten  per  cent  nor  less  than  six  and 
one-half  per  cent  of  non- volatile  ether  extract;  and  shall 
contain  not  more  than  sixteen  per  cent  of  crude  fibre. 

Prepared  Mustard. — Pure  Mustard  mixed  with  vinegar 
and  spices  may  be  sold  if  labeled  'Trepared  Mustard" 
and  bear  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer,  but 
if  any  substance  or  substances  are  added  to  cheapen  it, 
such  as  flour,  etc.,  it-  will  be  deemed  adulterated.  The 
label  proper  must  contain  the  words  ''Prepared  Mustard," 
and  have  no  other  designation  than  herein  required.  Printed 
matter  descriptive  of  the  goods  will  be  allowed  upon  the 
label  below  the  words  ''Prepared  Mustard,"  or  below  the 
name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer. 

Renovated  Butter. — All  packages  containing  same  sold, 
offered  or  exposed  for  sale,  or  in  possession  with  intent 
to  sell,  must  be  labeled  '  'Renovated  Butter. " 

Packages  put  up  for  immediate  delivery  shall  be  covered 
by  wrappers  on  which  must  be  printed  the  words  "Reno- 
vated Butter"  in  Gothic  letters  at  least  three-eighths  of 
an  inch  square  and  such  wrappers  shall  contain  no  other 
words  or  printing  thereon,  and  said  words  "Renovated 
Butter"  so  printed  shall  not  be  in  any  manner  concealed. 

If  packed  in  tubs  or  other  receptacles  the  words  "Reno- 
vated Butter"  must  be  printed  in  Gothic  letters  at  least 
three-eights  of  an  inch  square  on  two  sides  of  the  same. 

14 


106  STATE  OF  MICHIGAN. 

If  uncovered  or  not  in  a  case  or  package  a  placard  con- 
taining said  words  in  the  same  form  as  above  described 
shall  be  attached  to  the  mass  in  such  manner  as  to  be  easily 
seen  and  read  by  the  purchaser. 

Saccharine. — The  use  of  saccharine  in  all  food  products 
is  prohibited. 

Syrup. — Syrup  mixed  with  glucose  must  be  distinctly 
branded  or  labeled  '  'Glucose  Mixture' '  or  '  'Corn  Syrup" 
^in  plain  Gothic  type  not  less  than  three-eighths  of  an  inch 
square.  It  shall  also  have  the  name  and  percentage  by 
weight  of  each  ingredient  contained  therein  plainly  stamped, 
branded  or  stenciled  on  each  package  in  plain  Gothic 
letters  not  less  than  one-fourth  of  an  inch  square.  Every 
package  of  syrup  either  simple  or  mixed  shall  bear  the 
name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer.  It  shall  have 
no  other  designation  or  brand  that  represents  or  is  the 
name  of  any  article  which  contains  a  saccharine  substance 
and  all  brands  or  labels  shall  be  an  inseparable  part  of 
the  general  or  distinguishing  label,  which  shall  be  that 
principal  and  conspicuous  sign  under  which  it  is  sold. 

Spices. — Must  be  pure  and  true  to  name.  Cannot  be 
mixed  or  compounded  with  any  other  article  and  sold  under 
the  name  of  any  ingredient  thereof,  even  though  the  pack- 
age be  labeled  mixture  or  compound.     (See  Pepper.) 

Sweet  Chocolates  and  Sweet  Cocoas. — If  containing  no 
other  substance  than  cocoa  mass,  and  not  to  exceed  60 
per  cent  of  sugar  and  flavoring,  will  not  be  classed  as  a 
compound  or  mixture.  They  must  be  plainly  and  distinctly 
labeled  sweet  chocolate  or  sweet  cocoa,  and  bear  the  name 
and  address  of  the  manufacturer. 

Vinegar. — All  packages  containing  vinegar  must  be 
branded  with  the  name  and  address  of  the  manufacturer. 
All  vinegar  must  contain  not  less  than  four  per  cent  by 
weight  of  absolute  acetic  acid  and  must  not  contain  any 
preparation  of  lead,  copper,  sulphuric  acid,  or  ingredients 


DAIRY  AND  FOOD  LAWS.  107 

injurious  to  health.  All  vinegar  made  by  fermentation 
and  oxidation  must  be  branded  '  'fermented  vinegar/ ' 
with  the  name  of  the  fruit  or  substance  from  which  the 
same  is  made,  must  be  free  from  foreign  substance  and 
must  contain  not  less  than  one  and  three-fourths  per  cent 
by  weight  of  solids  contained  in  the  fruit  or  grain  from 
which  said  vinegar  is  fermented,  and  not  less  than  two  and 
a  half  tenths  of  one  per  cent  ash  or  mineral  matter,  the 
same  being  the  product  of  the  material  from  which  said 
vinegar  is  manufactured.  All  vinegar  made  wholly  or 
in  part  from  distilled  liquor  must  be  branded  ' 'Distilled 
Vinegar,"  and  must  be  free  from  artificial  coloring  mat- 
ter. Only  vinegar  made  from  pure  apple  juice,  free  from 
foreign  substances,  drugs,  or  acids,  and  containing  not 
less  than  one  and  three-fourths  per  cent  by  weight  of  cider 
vinegar  solids,  can    be    sold    as    apple,    orchard    or    cider 


INDEX. 


Section  Page 

ADULTERATION  OF  FOOD  PRODUCTS 29  22 

food  defined 30  22 

articles  when  adulterated 31  22 

does  not  apply  to  mixtures  or  compounds 31  23 

APIARIES: 

inspector,  how  appointed 22  19 

inspection  of 23  19 

inspector  may  burn  diseased  apiaries 24  20 

penalty  for  selling  diseased  bees,  honey,  etc 25  20 

report  of  inspector 26  20 

appropriation 27  20 

salary  of  inspector 27  20 

act  repealed 28  20 

APPROPRIATION 11  11 

tax  levy 12  11 

BAKERIES: 

commissioner  to  enforce  cleanliness 6  7 

penalty  for  permitting  unsanitary  conditions  to  exist 6  7 

BAKING  POWDER:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  100.)  / 

BEES:     (See  Apiaries,  p.  19.) 

BUCKWHEAT  FLOUR:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  100.) 

buckwheat  flour  compound,  how  labeled 50  29 

prima  facie  evidence  of  intent 52  30 

taking  of  orders  deemed  a  sale 53  30 

penalty • 54  30 

repealing  clause 55  30 

BULLETINS: 

to  be  issued  monthly,  what  to  contain \ 9  10 

BUTTER:     (See  Renovated  Butter.) 

lawful  butter  defined 32  23 

penalty  for  selling  unlawful  butter 32  23 

(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  100.) 

CANDY:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  100.) 

adulteration  of  candies 91  43 

CANNED  FRUITS  AND  VEGETABLES:     (See  Digest  and  Rul- 
ings, p.  101.) 

soaked  or  bleached  goods,  how  labeled 42  27 


110 


INDEX. 


Section  Page 


CATSUP:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  100.) 
CHEESE:     (See  Dairy  Products.) 

lawful  cheese  defined 

penalty  for  selling  unlawful  cheese 

full  milk  cheese  may  be  so  branded ' 

cheese  factories  and  creameries  must  register  and  report  annually.. 

penalty  for  non-registration 

brands  for  cheese,  how  obtained 

record  of  cheese  brands,  commissioner  to  keep 

fee  for  full  cream  cheese  brands  to  be  paid  annually 

falsely  branded  cheese 

CHEESE  FACTORIES: 

must  register  annually  with  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner 

penalty  for  non-registration 

CHOCOLATES  AND  COCOAS:     (See  Sweet  Chocolates  and  Sweet 

Cocoas.) 
CLERKS: 

commissioner  to  appoint 

CLEANLINESS  OF  CREAMERIES,  CHEESE  FACTORIES,  MILK 
DEPOTS,  ETC.: 

duties  of  commissioner  in  enforcing  same 

COFFEE  AND  COFFEE  SUBSTITUTES:     (See  Digest  and  Rul- 
ings, p.  101.) 

imitations,  adulterations,  etc 

coffee  compound,  how  labeled 

CONCENTRATED  COMMERCIAL  FEEDING  STUFFS: 

chemical  analysis  to  be  furnished 

articles  included  in  the  t?rm  Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs 

articles  not  included  in  the  term  Commercial  Feeding  Stuffs 

duties  of  manufacturers,  etc.,  in  relation  thereto 

license  to  be  obtained 

analyses  to  be  under  direction  of  Dairy  and  Food  Commissioner. . . 

penalty  for  illegal  sales 

CONDENSED  MILK  FACTORIES:     (See  Dairy  Products.) 

registration  and  report  of 

CONFECTIONARIES:     (See  Ice  Cream  Plants.) 
CORN  SYRUP:     (See  Glucose  Mixture.) 

corn  syrup  defined 101 

how  to  be  labeled 101 

name  and  percentage  of  ingredients  to  appear  on  label 101 

other  requirements  in  labeling 101 

penalty 102 

(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  106.) 
CREAMERIES: 

must  register  with  and  report  annually  to  Dairy  and  Food  Com- 
missioner   ; 16 

penalty  for  non-registration 34 

CREAM  OF  TARTAR:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  101.) 


33 

23 

33 

24 

34 

24 

16 

13 

34 

24 

35 

24 

35 

25 

35 

25 

36 

25 

16 

13 

34 

24 

43 

27 

43 

27 

18 

15 

18 

16 

18 

16 

18 

16- 

18 

17 

18 

17 

18 

17 

16       13 


46 

46 
47 
47 


13 
24 


INDEX. 


Ill 


*                                                                                                                   Section  Page 
DAIRY  AND  FOOD  COMMISSIONER: 

appointment  and  term  of  office 1  3 

removal  and  vacancy 2  3 

oath  of  office  and  bond 3  4 

salary  and  expenses 4  4 

appointment  of  deputy 4  4 

appointment  of  clerks 4  4 

appointment  of  inspectors 4  4 

appointment  of  state  analyst  and  assistant 5  5 

duties  of  commissioner 6  6 

power  to  examine  articles  of  food  and  drink 6  6 

may  call  for  assistance  of  prosecuting  attorney 7  9 

annual  report  and  monthly  bulletins 9  10 

penalty  for  obstructing  (See  also  p.  18) 10  10 

to  appoint  inspector  of  apiaries 22  19 

when  to  cause  inspection  of  apiaries  to  be  made 23  19 

to  issue  cheese  brands 35  24 

to  investigate  complaints 48  28 

DAIRY  PRODUCTS: 

duties  of  commissioner  in  relation  thereto 13  11 

impure  and  unwholesome  milk 14  12 

penalty  for  furnishing  same  to  creameries,  cheese  factories,  con- 
densed milk  factories,  etc 14  13 

sanitary  condition  of  creameries,  cheese  factories,  etc 15  13 

proprietors  to  be  notified  and  warned 15  13 

penalty  for  permitting  unsanitary  conditions  to  exist 15  13 

registration   of   cheese   factories,    creameries,    skimming   stations, 

condensed  milk  factories  and  milk  depots 16  13 

reports  to  be  made 16  14 

milk  dealers  to  obtain  a  license '.....  17  14 

DEPUTY  DAIRY  AND  FOOD  COMMISSIONER: 

appointment  of  deputy  commissioner 4  4 

bond,  oath  of  office  and  salary 4  5 

right  of  access  to  places  to  be  inspected 4  4 

DIGEST  AND  RULINGS 100 

EXTRACTS:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p. 'lOl.) 

FARINACEOUS  GOODS:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  102.) 

FARM  DAIRY:     (See  Dairy  Products.) 

FEEDING     STUFFS:     (See     Concentrated     Commercial     Feeding 

Stuffs.) 
FOOD:     (See  Adulteration  of  Food  Products.) 


GLUCOSE  MIXTURE,  MOLASSES,  ETC.:     (See  Corn  Syrup.) 

how  labeled 

(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  pp.  103  and  106.) 


43       27 


112  INDEX. 


Section  Page 
HONEY:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  102.) 

penalty  for  selling  adulterated  honey 25  20 

ICE  CREAM  PLANTS: 

commissioner  to  enforce  cleanliness 6  7 

penalty  for  permitting  unsanitary  conditions  to  exist 6  7 

INSPECTORS: 

how  appointed  and  number  of 4  4 

bond  and  oath  of  office 4  5 

power  to  administer  oaths 4  4 

term  of  office 4  4 

salary  and  expenses 4  4 

right  of  access  to  places  to  be  inspected 4  4 

JELLY  AND  FRUIT  BUTTER:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  102.) 

imitations,  how  labeled 41  26 

penalty 41  26 

imitations  not  to  be  colored 41  26 

LARD:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  102.) 

lawful  lard  defined 37  25 

labeling  of  lard  imitations 38  25 

packages  containing  lard  substitutes  to  be  labeled 39  26 

possession  of  unlabeled  lard  substitutes 40  26 

LIQUOR:     (See  Digest  and  Jlulings,  p.  102.) 

adulteration  of  liquor  unlawful 93  44 

labeling  of  pure  liquor 94  44 

evidence  of  intent  to  sell 96  44 

liquor  must  be  branded 95  44 

false  use  of  branded  packages  unlawful 97  45 

druggists,  etc.,  exempt 98  45 

MAPLE  SYRUP  AND  MAPLE  SUGAR: 
(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  103.) 

MILK:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  103.) 

impure  milk,  .sale  prohibited ' 61  32 

double  damages 61  33 

penalty  for  violation 63  34 

milk  inspection  in  Detroit 64  34 

duty  of  inspector 65  34 

complaints 66  34 

each  sale  a  separate  offence 67  35 

hindrance  of  inspectors 68  35 

milk  inspectors  in  cities 69  35 

penalty  for  adulteration  of  milk 70  35 

skimmed  milk  to  be  labeled 72  36 

standard  ot  pure  milk 73  36 

testing  of  milk 74  36 


INDEX. 


113 


Section 

MILK— Continued. 

penalty  for  selling  skimmed  or  adulterated  milk 75 

sale  of  adulterated  milk 76 

penalty  for  violation 77 

MILK  DEPOT: 

Owners  or  managers  to  register  with  and  report  to  the  Dairy  and 
Food  Commissioner 16 

MIXTURES  OR  COMPOUNDS:     (See  Abstract  of  Laws,  p.  99.) 

what  constitutes 31 

must  bear  name  and  address  of  manufacturer 31 

must  have  a  distinctive  name 31 

cannot  be  sold  under  the  name  of  another  article 31 

can  contain  nothing  poisonous  or  injurious  to  health 31 

MOLASSES: 

how  labeled 43 

when  containing  glucose,  how  labeled 43 

size  of  letters  used  in  labeling 43 

MUSTARD :     (Prepared .) 

(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  105.) 


Page 

37 
37 
37 


13 

23 
23 
23 
22 
23 

27 
27 
27 


OLEOMARGARINE:     (See  Supreme  Court  Opinions.) 

labeling  of  butter  substitutes 78  38 

duty  of  persons  selling  butter  substitutes 79  38 

placard  to  be  used  where  sold  or  furnished 80  39 

terms  unlawful  to  use 81  39 

butter  defined 82  39 

oleomargarine  defined 83  39 

penalty  for  violation 84  40 

coloring  of  oleomargarine  unlawful 85  40 

penalty 86  41 

ingredient  color,  (See  case  of  Bennett  v.  Carr) '.  . . .  88 

(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  103.) 


PANCAKE  FLOUR:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  104.) 

PEPPER:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  105.) 

standard  for  black  pepper 99 

penalty  for  violation 100 

PLACES  WHERE  FOOD  OR  DRINK  ARE  MANUFACTURED, 
SOLD,  ETC.: 

to  be  kept  in  a  sanitary  condition 6 

commissioner  to  enforce  provision  of  section  in  relation  thereto ...         6 
penalty  for  failure  to  keep  clean  and  sanitary 6 

PRESERVATIVES: 

act  in  relation  thereto 103 

PROCEEDINGS: 

how  commenced 7 

justice  to  issue  summons 7 

time  for  appearance 7 

when  defendant  cannot  be  found 7 

15 


7 
7 
7 

47 

8 
8 
8 


114  INDEX. 


PROCEEDINGS— Continued.                                                                  Section  Page 

shall  proceed  as  in  case  of  attachment 7  9 

judgment,  how  rendered 7  g 

right  of  appeal 7  g 

disposition  of  proceeds 7  g 

PROSECUTING  ATTORNEY:     (See  also  p.  29) '. .  . .  . . .  . . . .  . .  .  .  .  .  7  9 

to  assist  commissioner 7  g 

RENOVATED  BUTTER:     (See  Butter.) 

renovated  butter  defined 37  41 

how  tubs,  firkins,  etc.,  shall  be  labeled 88  41 

manner  of  labeling  when  exposed  for  sale  in  mass, 88  42 

manner  of  labeling  prints,  rolls,  etc 88  42 

size  of  type  to  be  used  on  label 88  42 

cannot  be  concealed  from  view 88  42 

penalty  for  violation 89  42 

repeaUng  clause go  42 

(See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  105.) 

SACCHARINE:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  106.) 

SEIZURE  OF  ADULTERATED  GOODS:     (See  Proceedings.) 

when  goods  may  be  seized 7  8 

duty  of  person  making  seizure 7  8 

sample  to  be  taken  for  analysis 7  ^       8 

state  analyst  to  analfze  same  and  certify  results 7  8 

commissioner  or  person  duly  authorized  to  make  complaint 7  8 

justice  to  issue  summons 7  8 

time  for  appearance 7  8 

when  defendant  cannot  be  found 7  9 

shall  proceed  as  in  case  of  attachment 7  9 

judgment,  how  rendered 7  9 

right  to  appeal 7  9 

disposition  of  proceeds . .  7  9 

SKIMMING  STATIONS: 

owner  or  manager  to  register  with  and  to  report  to  the  Dairy  and 

Food  Commissioner 16  13 

SPICES:     (See  Pepper.) 

STATE  ANALYST  AND  ASSISTANT: 

how  appointed 5  5 

who  eligible 5  5 

oath  of  office 5  5 

term  of  office 5  5 

laboratory 5  ^ 

absence 5  5 

salaries  and  expenses,  how  audited  and  paid 5  6 

chemical  supplies , 5  6 

unlawful  for  analyst  to  furnish  certificates  of  purity 8  10 

to  make  reports  on  samples  analyzed  (See  also  p.  10) 7  8 

SWEET  CHOCOLATES  AND  SWEET  COCOAS 106 


INDEX.  115 


SUPREME  COURT  OPINIONS. 

PEOPLE  V.  SNOWBERGER:                                                                Section  Page 
adulteration  of  food — statutory  offenses,  intent — police  power 49 

PEOPLE  V.  WORDEN  GROCER  CO.: 

constitutional  law — act  to  prevent  sale  of  adulterated  vinegar — 

complaint — reasonableness  of  statute — defense 55 

PEOPLE  V.  DETTENTHALER: 

constitutional  law — passage  of  act  without  enactment  clause — 
constitutional  provision  mandatory — addition  of  clause  by 
Governor — laws  of  1897  invalid 61 

GROSVENOR  V.  DUFFY: 

pure  food  law — sale  of  oleomargarine  colored  to  imitate  butter — 

constitutionality  of  act 68 

PEOPLE  V.  SKILLMAN: 

pure   food   law — Section  5022,   C.   L.   construed — action   against 

traveling  salesman 71 

PEOPLE  V.  MORSE: 

pure  food  law- — sales  by  agents — criminal  responsibility  for  acts 

of  principal 75 

PEOPLE  V.  ROTTER:  ^ 

food — oleomargarine     act — constitutional     law — statutes — title — 

object 76 

PEOPLE  V.  PHILLIPS: 

food — adulteration — statutes — oleomargarine — yellow  butter 79 

PEOPLE  V.  JENNINGS: 

adulteration  of  food — omission  of  ingredients — coloring  matter — 

remarks  of  court ' 82 

BENNETT  V.  CARR: 

pure  food  law,  Act  22,  P.  A.  1901,  construed — sale  of  yellow  oleo- 
margarine    88 

PEOPLE  V.  HARRIS: 

food — corn  syrup — glucose 92 

PEOPLE  V.  HINSHAW: 

pure  food — adulterated  with  harmless  ingredient — Act  193,  P.  A. 

1895,  construed 96 

VINEGAR:     (See  Digest  and  Rulings,  p.  106.) 

sale  of  vinegar 56  31 

pure  vinegar  defined 56  31 

fermented  and  distilled  vinegar 57  31 

standard  for  fermented  vinegar 57  31 

vinegar  prohibited  from  sale 58  32 

brand 58  32 

penalty f 59  32 

repealing  clause .' 60  32 


B  2450 


iy^f 


oa-o 


385899 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


< 


